4 ms·

> Is there any reason why we can't ban institutional investors from the personal housing market? The same reason Corporations have personhood, it makes investo

> Is there any reason why we can't ban institutional investors from the personal housing market? The same reason Corporations have personhood, it makes investors money. > Let them chase other investments instead (stocks, crypto, bonds, whatever). All of those are down, but housing isn't, thats why they are chasing it like crazy. If I am not wrong, in London the most prevalent number fo homes owned was 1, then 2 and then it was like 7. Because 3-6 was expensive but not maximising yield, by 7 your investment pays for itself plus then you can accrue value to buy more property. So landlords get as many as possible. In the early 2010s when I was renting there a landlady asked us to pay rent on direct debit every 1st of the month because she had 42 properties and couldn't afford all the mortages if everyone didn't pay at once. An 82 year old lady, with 42 properties. This was not uncommon when meeting landlords at the time (maybe not as crazy as 42 but still higher than 5 was commmon).

ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>The same reason Corporations have personhood, it makes investors money. Yeah obviously, but it doesn't answer my question of why can't we regulate them out of the housing market? "It makes investors money" is not a good answer because a lot of nefarious things used make investors money, like slavery, child labor, 16h workdays, warmongering, snake oil, using asbestos or other toxic substances that kill you, building shoddy buildings that can collapse on you, drugs, polluting cars, alcohol, opioids, tobacco, fossil fuels, dumping toxic chemicals in rivers, deforestation, Ponzi schemes, and yet in most of the west we have regulated a lot of them or even outlawed some of them completely for the greater good because what's good for the investors isn't always good for humanity or for the environment. So why can't we do the same with housing? Tell institutional investors to fuck off with their bags of money somewhere else. Let them speculate on NFTs, famous paintings or Pokémon cards for all I care. >An 82 year old lady, with 42 properties. My point exactly. It's obvious that for basic human necessities like water, shelter and healthcare we can't just leave it to the free market competition to sort itself out, since over time it creates a system of winners and losers, where few who lucked out end up monopolizing the majority of the market share and defaulting to rentseeking, while the rest are left out completely, with no hope of ever being able to jump on board and forced to rent their whole lives. This rampant inequality is what led to the communists seizing power ~100 years ago, and despite being only ~30 years since communism collapsed in Europe, communism is on the rise again in elections in some EU countries especially among young people because the last 20-30 years of deregulated globalized capitalism has seen the biggest and quickest wealth transfer from the working class to the upper class ever seen.
- Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
  > Yeah obviously, but it doesn't answer my question of why can't we regulate them out of the housing market? Sorry I misunderstod your question. Well the main reason I would argue is the disconnect between politicians and general people. The examples you gave, like asbestos or child in mines do not benefit politicians directly. However most politicians are house owners, most own multiple properties, those laws affect them directly. The fact many of their constituents do not own a home is irrelevant because signing those laws affect them. > This rampant inequality is what led to the communists seizing power ~100 years ago, and despite being only ~30 years since communism collapsed in Europe, communism is on the rise again in elections in some EU countries especially among young people because the last 20-30 years of deregulated globalized capitalism has seen the biggest and quickest wealth transfer from the working class to the upper class ever seen. I think whatever is coming is gonna be inevitable, there has been an economic capture of levels unseen, coomers owned 30% of the gdp when they were the age millenials are now. Millenials own like 7%. It is unsusteinable and things like AI, the Internet, Globalisation have not yet been integrated properly into the economic model. I think the prefered solution is more horizontal models, unions are coming back, cooperatives are having a resurgance. Ideas like digital money can be terrible but could also reduce lending barriers. We are at a point where it seems to be more than enough for everyone its a matter of logistics. Green energy and 4 day weeks seem atteinable goals
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    >coomers owned 30% of the gdp Uhm, coomers? >Millenials own like 7% Luckily GenZ won't own anything, they will only have subscriptions for everything. /s

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

>The same reason Corporations have personhood, it makes investors money. Yeah obviously, but it doesn't answer my question of why can't we regulate them out of the housing market? "It makes investors money" is not a good answer because a lot of nefarious things used make investors money, like slavery, child labor, 16h workdays, warmongering, snake oil, using asbestos or other toxic substances that kill you, building shoddy buildings that can collapse on you, drugs, polluting cars, alcohol, opioids, tobacco, fossil fuels, dumping toxic chemicals in rivers, deforestation, Ponzi schemes, and yet in most of the west we have regulated a lot of them or even outlawed some of them completely for the greater good because what's good for the investors isn't always good for humanity or for the environment. So why can't we do the same with housing? Tell institutional investors to fuck off with their bags of money somewhere else. Let them speculate on NFTs, famous paintings or Pokémon cards for all I care. >An 82 year old lady, with 42 properties. My point exactly. It's obvious that for basic human necessities like water, shelter and healthcare we can't just leave it to the free market competition to sort itself out, since over time it creates a system of winners and losers, where few who lucked out end up monopolizing the majority of the market share and defaulting to rentseeking, while the rest are left out completely, with no hope of ever being able to jump on board and forced to rent their whole lives. This rampant inequality is what led to the communists seizing power ~100 years ago, and despite being only ~30 years since communism collapsed in Europe, communism is on the rise again in elections in some EU countries especially among young people because the last 20-30 years of deregulated globalized capitalism has seen the biggest and quickest wealth transfer from the working class to the upper class ever seen.

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
> Yeah obviously, but it doesn't answer my question of why can't we regulate them out of the housing market? Sorry I misunderstod your question. Well the main reason I would argue is the disconnect between politicians and general people. The examples you gave, like asbestos or child in mines do not benefit politicians directly. However most politicians are house owners, most own multiple properties, those laws affect them directly. The fact many of their constituents do not own a home is irrelevant because signing those laws affect them. > This rampant inequality is what led to the communists seizing power ~100 years ago, and despite being only ~30 years since communism collapsed in Europe, communism is on the rise again in elections in some EU countries especially among young people because the last 20-30 years of deregulated globalized capitalism has seen the biggest and quickest wealth transfer from the working class to the upper class ever seen. I think whatever is coming is gonna be inevitable, there has been an economic capture of levels unseen, coomers owned 30% of the gdp when they were the age millenials are now. Millenials own like 7%. It is unsusteinable and things like AI, the Internet, Globalisation have not yet been integrated properly into the economic model. I think the prefered solution is more horizontal models, unions are coming back, cooperatives are having a resurgance. Ideas like digital money can be terrible but could also reduce lending barriers. We are at a point where it seems to be more than enough for everyone its a matter of logistics. Green energy and 4 day weeks seem atteinable goals
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >coomers owned 30% of the gdp Uhm, coomers? >Millenials own like 7% Luckily GenZ won't own anything, they will only have subscriptions for everything. /s