6 ms·
I definitely do. It's something that turns a basic necessity into a speculative asset, with a price distorted by the money poured into it. Airbnb is also a deep
by smt88 4y ago
I definitely do. It's something that turns a basic necessity into a speculative asset, with a price distorted by the money poured into it. Airbnb is also a deeply harmful influence on housing prices.
Imagine if we did the same thing with, say, water: privatized it and then "democratized" ownership of it.
It's easy to get retail investors to buy things at inflated, speculative prices, so the price of water would go up. People would say, "Why are so many people dying due to lack of access to water?" And we would blame these startups, laws would be passed, and we would fix it.
Unfortunately the necessity of housing is not as direct and clear, and we have a long history of denying housing to people who are unlucky, sick, or the children of such people.
- vt85 4y ago[dead]
- chrisseaton 4y ago> Imagine if we did the same thing with, say, water: privatized it and then "democratized" ownership of it. Lol we did that in England!
- aaaaaaaaata 4y ago> Imagine if we did the same thing with, say, water: privatized it and then "democratized" ownership of it. We're watching this happen before our eyes.
- feet 4y agoNestlé is at the forefront of taking over a water supply and selling it back to the locals to enrich the corporation at the expense of the humans who live there
- missedthecue 4y agoIf you don't like that, the logical thing is to support water commiditization so that nestle doesn't get it for free.
- feet 4y agoWater commodification is exactly what Nestlé is doing What we need is regulation to stop them from doing that, not a different company selling and capturing the water. That's just more of the same thing which solves nothing.
- missedthecue 4y agoNestle gets all the water they want for a $200 permit. That's not water commodification. They sell bottled water, but that's also not commodification of water. Almost 0% of US water consumption comes from a plastic bottle, and you can't commodify a market with ~0% market share.
- feet 4y agoYour statement is false, what Nestlé does is literally the definition of commodification Commodification definition: the act or fact of turning something into an item that can be bought and sold: The commodification of water means that access is available only to those who can pay. >https://www.dictionary.com/browse/commodification https://www.dictionary.com/browse/commodification Nobody mentioned the US. Nestlé does this in various other countries. >https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/04/ontario-six-nations-nestle-running-water https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/04/ontario-six-n...
- missedthecue 4y agoNestle sells portable bottles. That's what differentiates their product from the tap.
- feet 4y agoThey sell bottles filled with water, not everyone has access to tap water and Nestlé captures so much of a water source that locals don't have access to the freely available water that they did before. Are you not aware that fresh water from wells depletes sources? The water table is limited. You seem to be intentionally twisting the scenario in a disingenuous manner. Nestlé is selling water that was once free to a populace.
- iso1631 4y agoIn most of the UK (England and Wales), water was privitised in 1989 General consensus even amongst the right-wing media and the media that aims to appeal to conservative voters [1-4] seems to be is that we have drought and hosepipe bans while the private companies pay out £1b dividends and it's not right. [1] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/54e5542a-1a6b-11ed-b1f4-627a202c7457?shareToken=13e034b630fe5a5e0fd5b52109f3b865 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/54e5542a-1a6b-11ed-b1f4-6... [2] https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/20604864.privatisation-water-rail-disaster/ https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/20604864.privatisatio... [3] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/37ddb10c-157e-11ed-a669-519b582f91b7?shareToken=b2162aa5536851c84807ca89fe130f69 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/37ddb10c-157e-11ed-a669-5... [4] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2022/08/09/water-firms-sold-reservoirs-could-have-eased-drought/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2022/08/09/water-fir...
- dazc 4y agoShowing my age, but back in 1976, where I lived, water was being brought in by tanker day and night during the hottest summer on record. I'm not saying privatisation has been a glowing success but supply issues were much worse in the days of nationalisation, especially when you factor in the population growth over the past few decades.
- nosianu 4y agoThere is the huge confounder that everywhere in the developed world - and even in the less developed world like East Germany, where I grew up, a lot of infrastructure was added and improved over the decades after WWII and it has nothing whatsoever to do with private vs. government (or, in the case of Germany mostly, for water and energy) municipal ownership. Many houses had coal stoves and privies a few decades ago, that is simply how it was, not a question of "we need to privatize water and heating". Here in Germany especially water is usually operated and owned by local municipally owned enterprises, and I'd say it's a huge success. Even my home district in East Germany (GDR) build a huge water infrastructure project with a dam, many kilometers of large pipes, and one or more (don't know exactly how many) water processing plants, definitely nothing privately owned there. People including those in power just put a very high value on having enough and reliable supply of water in Germany, and it has nothing to do with private vs. government, given what we have now with mostly local and state governments providing. In recent years a lot more private companies entered the picture, but I'm not sure about ownership (municipalities also operate their own companies), in the end it's an attitude question more so than blaming it of "private better". You can have success or failure with either model.
- glyphy177 4y agoYou won't have to imagine for long.
- roenxi 4y ago> It's something that turns a basic necessity into a speculative asset I see some broad parallels in this line of rhetoric to "Zeus brings misfortune because people are impious vs good fortune when they are worthy". It presumes a difference and a drive that is not there. All assets are both speculative and non-speculative at all times. There are no assets that cannot be bought speculatively and a house is always going to be an asset because it represents a big investment of capital. If people are speculating on real estate, all that says is that the policy of an area is going to make housing rare vs the number of people who need housing. If people thought housing was going to be abundant they would not speculate. There are problems in the housing market, but they are not to be found by worrying about people acting speculatively. People are responding to the real problem, whatever it is.
- Victerius 4y ago> There are problems in the housing market, but they are not to be found by worrying about people acting speculatively. People are responding to the real problem, whatever it is We should do both. Build more housing and crack down on speculators.
- roenxi 4y agoShooting the messenger has a bad record for making things better. Speculators don't drive markets, they just signal how the situation will develop as early as it is possible for predictions to be made. Cracking down on speculators won't help people get roofs over their heads. Nor will calling them unethical. Speculators are the signal for whether there is going to be a housing problem in a few years time. We should want a system that allows speculators and encourages them if there is going to be a housing problem so there is plenty of warning. Targeting speculators in particular is the old once-a-metric-becomes-the-target-it-becomes-a-bad-metric problem in a new guise.
- shuntress 4y agoThis assumes that the speculators are correct. That is not a good assumption to make.
- NonNefarious 4y agoAnd what are we doing about CORPORATIONS buying up our neighborhoods? As far as I know, NOTHING.
- chii 4y ago"our" neighborhood implies that you own it - so if you owned something, and sold it, how can you complain that someone (or gasp, a corporation) is buying when you're selling?
- LBJsPNS 4y ago
- DAVer98 4y agoThis is why nations as a whole are being done away with by the market controllers who have the capital.
- missedthecue 4y agoTextbook NIMBYism. Just because you bought a place does not entitle you to having the surrounding vicinity stay in stasis until you leave.
- robertlagrant 4y agoHere are some of the guidelines for participating here: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies, generic tangents, and internet tropes. Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
- 4y ago
- ramesh31 4y ago>I definitely do. It's something that turns a basic necessity into a speculative asset, with a price distorted by the money poured into it The 30 year mortgage is one of the greatest inventions in the history of mankind. Being able to swing hundreds of thousands of dollars of margin on a near-zero-down investment that requires nothing more than proof of income and has a manageable monthly payment is the single most powerful financial tool available to the vast majority of people. That kind of leverage is only possible with the commodification and securitization of real estate. It’s not a perfect system, but it has led to intergenerational family wealth accumulation among the common population more than anything else before.
- unlikelymordant 4y agoI disagree somewhat. I think the 30 year mortgage has pushed prices up much higher than they would have been, because of the leverage, and people only look at the monthly repayment. The fact that it has led to intergenerational wealth (among the rich who can afford houses) is a direct side effect of the fact that houses are so expensive. It seems like saying it has generated wealth is begging the question.
- ghaff 4y ago>people only look at the monthly repayment That's somewhat understandable given that the alternative is pretty much writing a monthly rent check. In that respect, it's a bit different to my mind than an auto loan. (Maybe if you compare it to a lease.) If you didn't have 30 year fixed mortgages in the US, property values might indeed drop somewhat. But it would mostly advantage people who had access to other capital. People who can't afford houses in expensive areas now mostly still wouldn't be able to.
- jackcosgrove 4y agoCanada has shorter mortgage terms that require multiple mortgages to pay off a house at different times, transferring interest rate risk to the buyer. Canada also has higher house prices than the US. Mortgage term length may contribute to price growth to some extent, but I think the supply of and demand for housing swamp any effects of financing. Being able to lock in a low interest rate for thirty years, the probable lifetime of the amortization period, is very advantageous. Combine this with a lack of a prepayment penalty and American mortgage holders get a great deal.
- missedthecue 4y agoI have long supported the privatization and commiditization of water. It should be sold on the basis of supply and demand with markets, futures, and so forth. Don't like almond farms, bottled water companies pumping millions of gallons for the price of a $200 permit, and golf courses watering their courses during a drought? Then you should too.
- xkcd1963 4y agoWhy?
- missedthecue 4y agoSo that water supply becomes a workable business model, increasing supply, and so that uneconomic water usage is discouraged. Such as almond farming in Southern California during the summer
- paulryanrogers 4y agoApparently so those water hoarding companies have to pay the full rate, instead of some subsidized rate. I.e. stop privatizing profits with socializing the costs
- UncleEntity 4y agoOne thing you can absolutely guarantee when it comes to a necessity of life commodity, a black swan event will occur and people will die because they are priced out of the market. Imagine, if you will, when the Texas grid went all wonky and those people who choose to buy power at open market rates had to prepay for their $13,000 kw/hr electricity because the power company had a limit on how much credit they will give you. Now imagine a drought where there is a disruption in the water supply because a pump burned out due to record setting high temperatures. I’m no cheerleader for big government but if people insist on having one there are valid activities that they should engage in to protect the citizens from getting bitch slapped by the invisible hand of the market. This being one of them considering how capital intensive it is to provide a reliable water supply.
- mudrockbestgirl 4y ago> Imagine if we did the same thing with, say, water Hm, maybe we can do the same thing with Air. We can even keep the same name, Airbnb, but this time people are paying for the best air.
- gwnywg 4y agoI have recently paid literally for that. In the mountain village where I was spending my holidays they charged me tax because of the air I was breathing. They called it 'climate tax' but the better translation is 'environmental tax'. And fun fact, unfortunately the air was not that clean neither because the place is very popular..
- Simon_O_Rourke 4y ago> Airbnb is also a deeply harmful influence on housing prices. It's simply unimaginable what it's done in cities across Europe too. I lived in a few places like Barcelona, Dublin and Berlin, and it's pretty much destroyed any rental opportunities for young people and artists. I'm all for regulation, including taxing them to make longer term rentals more profitable for owners.
- drdec 4y ago> It's something that turns a basic necessity into a speculative asset The solution to that is the same as the housing problem - build more housing. And it's fine if the new housing is "luxury" housing - then yesterday's luxury housing becomes today's not-so-luxurious, etc.
- carapace 4y agoIn theory. What we see in practice (here in SF) is a glut of vacant luxury homes next to people living in RVs and tents. Belvedere Island (where Captain Kirk will one day live) is mostly empty. The fancy homes there are almost all investments, few people actually live there.
- drdec 4y agoSo build more housing. Keep doing it until the problem goes away. It will eventually.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]