4 ms·

Right. Strategy 1 was "offer retirement plans and default on them," strategy 2 is "let them buy assets, dilute them with printed money." I also agree that when

Right. Strategy 1 was "offer retirement plans and default on them," strategy 2 is "let them buy assets, dilute them with printed money." I also agree that when the middle class erodes to the point that asset ownership falls below 50% is when things get, uhh, interesting.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
A lot of people think this - but most of Europe has been like this for a while. Why will it be so interesting when it happens in the US?
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Yeah middle class homeownership is bullshit. Middle class stock ownership is less obviously good or bad, because the 0-sum nature of land is not present. When one gets right down to it, ownership is a too strong stuff. Total Control for eternity which is then sold in finite time in practice? Woah there, why so many infinities? "Rent" has a bad rep, but the problems of rent have to do with it being backstopped by ownship --- i.e. private landlords. "Rent all the way down" is good and conceptually simpler as their are no crazy cancelling out infinitis or whatnot. It's a system of flows that more accurate tracks how the "real economy" works. Of course, it is important there is still leverage, futures markets, etc. etc. of various sorts to push along history, but full ownership is too much a sledgehammer.
  - novok 5y ago
    There really isn't such thing as ownership. Stop paying your property tax and see what happens.
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      Certainly, but we dole out an awful lot of privileges in return for that measly obligation! Prop 13 merely puts the silliness in sharper relief.
    - anonporridge 5y ago
      There is with bitcoin.
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    So, what then? The state owns all the land and all company stock? Non-middle-class persons own all the land and all company stock? Sounds like a great way to force everyone except the wealthy elite into poverty cycles. Maybe there is a reason that those countries that implement what you are talking about (no property ownership) are locked in either perpetual poverty or perpetual war against their own citizens. Doing away with property ownership is a great way to join the ranks of the third world.
- eulers_secret 5y ago
  It's already that way in the US, the percentage of paid off home owners is ~29%. I don't know why some people consider themselves "owners" of assets the bank actually owns, but it's normal in the USA.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    With interest rates at their current level, it makes a lot of sense to not pay down your mortage, to refinance, or even to take out a heloc. Again what matters is net worth, not whether you house is paid off.
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    > It's already that way in the US, the percentage of paid off home owners is ~29%. That 29% is a huge chunk of people; to put things in perspective US presidents win elections with a lower percentage of support from the population. > I don't know why some people consider themselves "owners" of assets the bank actually owns, but it's normal in the USA. Because they actually have equity in that asset, and that equity might be the majority? For example, they bought the house for $500k, then ten years later they owe $350k but the realisable value of the house is $800k. If the house is turned into cash, they own more of the cash than the bank does. Also, because there is a clear path to ownership[1]? You aren't at the whim of the landlord - upgrade (or not) your property whichever way you feel is best with very little interference from the actual "owner" (i.e. the bank). If you have complete say in how an asset is used, and when it will be disposed off, and who may use it, that sure looks like ownership to me. My residence, for example, will, at the current trajectory, be completely paid off in 24 months or less. My monthly costs drop dramatically at that point, which can be the major goal when "buying" property.
  - blululu 5y ago
    The bank owns the debt on the money that was used to buy the house, which is not the same as the house by any stretch. Having the deed to a house comes with a lot of strong legal protections.

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

A lot of people think this - but most of Europe has been like this for a while. Why will it be so interesting when it happens in the US?

Ericson2314 5y ago
Yeah middle class homeownership is bullshit. Middle class stock ownership is less obviously good or bad, because the 0-sum nature of land is not present. When one gets right down to it, ownership is a too strong stuff. Total Control for eternity which is then sold in finite time in practice? Woah there, why so many infinities? "Rent" has a bad rep, but the problems of rent have to do with it being backstopped by ownship --- i.e. private landlords. "Rent all the way down" is good and conceptually simpler as their are no crazy cancelling out infinitis or whatnot. It's a system of flows that more accurate tracks how the "real economy" works. Of course, it is important there is still leverage, futures markets, etc. etc. of various sorts to push along history, but full ownership is too much a sledgehammer.
- novok 5y ago
  There really isn't such thing as ownership. Stop paying your property tax and see what happens.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    Certainly, but we dole out an awful lot of privileges in return for that measly obligation! Prop 13 merely puts the silliness in sharper relief.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    There is with bitcoin.
- lelanthran 5y ago
  So, what then? The state owns all the land and all company stock? Non-middle-class persons own all the land and all company stock? Sounds like a great way to force everyone except the wealthy elite into poverty cycles. Maybe there is a reason that those countries that implement what you are talking about (no property ownership) are locked in either perpetual poverty or perpetual war against their own citizens. Doing away with property ownership is a great way to join the ranks of the third world.
eulers_secret 5y ago
It's already that way in the US, the percentage of paid off home owners is ~29%. I don't know why some people consider themselves "owners" of assets the bank actually owns, but it's normal in the USA.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  With interest rates at their current level, it makes a lot of sense to not pay down your mortage, to refinance, or even to take out a heloc. Again what matters is net worth, not whether you house is paid off.
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > It's already that way in the US, the percentage of paid off home owners is ~29%. That 29% is a huge chunk of people; to put things in perspective US presidents win elections with a lower percentage of support from the population. > I don't know why some people consider themselves "owners" of assets the bank actually owns, but it's normal in the USA. Because they actually have equity in that asset, and that equity might be the majority? For example, they bought the house for $500k, then ten years later they owe $350k but the realisable value of the house is $800k. If the house is turned into cash, they own more of the cash than the bank does. Also, because there is a clear path to ownership[1]? You aren't at the whim of the landlord - upgrade (or not) your property whichever way you feel is best with very little interference from the actual "owner" (i.e. the bank). If you have complete say in how an asset is used, and when it will be disposed off, and who may use it, that sure looks like ownership to me. My residence, for example, will, at the current trajectory, be completely paid off in 24 months or less. My monthly costs drop dramatically at that point, which can be the major goal when "buying" property.
- blululu 5y ago
  The bank owns the debt on the money that was used to buy the house, which is not the same as the house by any stretch. Having the deed to a house comes with a lot of strong legal protections.