3 ms·

If you own it, you still have a place to live, and you'll probably need a place to live until you die, so on paper, you have less, but a house is not really a l

If you own it, you still have a place to live, and you'll probably need a place to live until you die, so on paper, you have less, but a house is not really a liquid asset. On the other hand, if you want to buy instead of rent, you're currently basically fucked. Housing should not be an investment.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> If you own it, you still have a place to live, and you'll probably need a place to live until you die If you bought it recently, you'll probably be massively underwater (and, since your plan isn't just a one-time cut to let people on the ride, but also attacking the dynamics driving value increases) permanently so, and fucked if you ever need to move, or to get other credit. If you are close to selling and downsizing, and its your main asset as it almost invariably is, your life savings was just deliberately cut in half. > Housing should not be an investment. Maybe in some idealized vision; in the real world that exists right now it is, and its heavily relied on by the middle to top, by income, end of the proletariat and maybe the bottom end of the petit bourgeoisie, which as targets for class warfare go is a pretty odd choice. And trying to attack this (regardless of arguable steady-state merits) while handwaving the transition issues is simply that—class warfare against that group.
- bfeynman 3y ago
  Exactly, I never said it was a good thing that housing is an investment, only that that is the current state of affairs, and to alter that would have ramifications that would cause huge problems. Best thing we can do is stabilize what we currently have and figure a way forward that doesn't worsen the problem, but we cannot go back.
bfeynman 3y ago
Many people have mortgages on their home, being underwater on a mortgage (i.e. the LTV spikes because you are now borrowing more than the home is worth) would set off a bank/debt crisis, that is what I meant by catastrophic.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> If you own it, you still have a place to live, and you'll probably need a place to live until you die If you bought it recently, you'll probably be massively underwater (and, since your plan isn't just a one-time cut to let people on the ride, but also attacking the dynamics driving value increases) permanently so, and fucked if you ever need to move, or to get other credit. If you are close to selling and downsizing, and its your main asset as it almost invariably is, your life savings was just deliberately cut in half. > Housing should not be an investment. Maybe in some idealized vision; in the real world that exists right now it is, and its heavily relied on by the middle to top, by income, end of the proletariat and maybe the bottom end of the petit bourgeoisie, which as targets for class warfare go is a pretty odd choice. And trying to attack this (regardless of arguable steady-state merits) while handwaving the transition issues is simply that—class warfare against that group.

bfeynman 3y ago
Exactly, I never said it was a good thing that housing is an investment, only that that is the current state of affairs, and to alter that would have ramifications that would cause huge problems. Best thing we can do is stabilize what we currently have and figure a way forward that doesn't worsen the problem, but we cannot go back.

bfeynman 3y ago

Many people have mortgages on their home, being underwater on a mortgage (i.e. the LTV spikes because you are now borrowing more than the home is worth) would set off a bank/debt crisis, that is what I meant by catastrophic.