3 ms·
Well said and interesting. Part of the problem with change is that there are always negative effects somewhere, but the answer should be to address those negati
by ethbr0 4y ago
Well said and interesting. Part of the problem with change is that there are always negative effects somewhere, but the answer should be to address those negative effects... not to postpone change until a mythical no-negative version is found.
- ruined 4y agoprobably the main negative consequence of any real estate regime change would be the destruction of incredible amounts of (paper) wealth. if you're going to reduce the market price of real estate, you're going to devalue one of the most foundational assets in the economy. but, that's the point. you can't reduce real estate prices without reducing real estate prices.
- x86x87 4y agoDestruction of wealth would be bad since that would impact everyone (homeowner or not). I would opt for wealth transfer. Build more housing! Once the demand decreases the price will decrease. This also solves another fundamental problem: we pretend that there are X houses and X people that need a place to live. In reality there are more people than houses. Way more. Build more houses. Build high density housing. Stop treating housing like some sort of holy grail investment.