3 ms·
>It would be a bloodbath for investors and consequently cannot be allowed to happen. If it will be a bloodbath for investors it's not a matter of not allowing
by simonh 4y ago
>It would be a bloodbath for investors and consequently cannot be allowed to happen.
If it will be a bloodbath for investors it's not a matter of not allowing it, people just won't invest and it won't happen anyway. Or the government will massively subsidise it and under-wright it to make it happen, and the public purse will carry the can. If it were financially viable on it's own, the private sector would most likely do it anyway, but if you're starting from the point of financial non-viability of your housing scheme as a starting assumption, blaming investors seems a bit silly.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y agoThat's assuming the current prices are reflective of the actual value rather than a degenerate speculative market.
- simonh 4y agoI'm not quite sure what you mean by a degenerate speculative market, but if you've got some special way to perceive value others haven't, watch out Warren Buffett.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y agoI mean a market selling houses that will never be lived in and exist solely as a speculative investment for foreign buyers, one where corporations and funds behave like feudal lords while people remain renters their whole lives and get evicted at will. I'm not surprised you don't understand what I mean when I speak of the value of housing if your first thought is Warren Buffet. The value of a house is the stability, safety and shelter it gives to the citizenry, it's allowing people who live in it to prosper and to build families.