3 ms·
I totally get what you're saying, but in particular I protest against moral hypocrisy. The very people complaining about being locked out of the housing market
by fleddr 5y ago
I totally get what you're saying, but in particular I protest against moral hypocrisy.
The very people complaining about being locked out of the housing market, being a victim of market conditions, would instantly forget about any and all morality as soon as they do secure a house. They'd absolutely not sell their house at a discount.
When they preach "accessible housing", they mean accessible to them. When their houses appreciate in price just for the sake of owning it, I would know of nobody saying: I didn't deserve this, I'm going to wire this money to charity or back to the government.
There is no morality in markets. Whilst as owner you may benefit, in times that you do not (economic crisis, expensive repairs, personal problems like divorce or disability)...absolutely nobody comes to your rescue.
Morals and markets do not go together.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoSure, the hypocrisy is a problem. I remember in Seattle in the mid-90s just as the housing market there was starting to take off hearing a radio talk show where someone was complaining about Californians coming to WA and "ruining things" by bidding up housing costs. The host pointed out that it takes two to tango, and that the sellers were just as implicated in the process as the buyers. The caller got very flustered and then said "well, yeah, but it would be un-American to accept anything except the highest price". Sigh.
- fleddr 5y agoSince the moment humans traded commercially, getting the highest price for anything has been the norm. So I wouldn't call it an American thing and also not a neoliberal thing. It's basic commerce.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago> getting the highest price for anything has been the norm This is not true. For example, the Romans used to use a cost-plus pricing scheme, and were apparently alarmed/surprised by the negotiations that they saw in Arab markets.
- fleddr 5y agoThat I did not know. I don't think it entirely overrules my point, but it's a good counter nevertheless.
- dasil003 5y agoI don’t think this is quite fair. Just because someone recognizes a major systemic problem such as spiraling housing prices doesn’t obligate them to unilaterally decline their personal gains on a moral basis, especially because that will achieve nothing in terms of rectifying the situation. Now if they oppose broader reform that could actually have positive effects, that’s a more appropriate and nuanced question.