3 ms·
I think your argument is correct with the assumption that houses should be considered investment. I don't think they should, but realise that this statement is
by cgio 3y ago
I think your argument is correct with the assumption that houses should be considered investment. I don't think they should, but realise that this statement is only articulated in principle rather than in practical and pragmatic terms. On the other hand, the practical and pragmatic treatment of houses as investment property has driven us to the precipice of one of the greatest potential societal crises at a broadly global scale. We have people literally slaving out to pay for a roof over their head. If the landlord's investment makes that ethically acceptable for them, I am afraid it's not for those who live this reality on the wrong side of the table. It always ends the same way, unavoidably. It will also impact the really productive parts of economy, when consumer base is shrinking because people just try to pay their rent, electricity and gas.
- bombcar 3y agoThe amusingly sad thing is that they aren't even a great investment, all things considered, because over large enough areas and long enough times, they basically keep pace with inflation. That has been obscured and hidden from the public consciousness, but it's there (and it basically has to be, as if it's not, eventually you get insanity where nobody can afford to live in anything - some say we're close to this but it cannot continue, just like population simply cannot literally increasing forever or eventually the entire mass of the Earth would be made of people.) Too many landlords have been buying long and selling short, and losing money doing so but it's hidden by (sometimes) apparent appreciation - that train is rapidly decelerating and will be at the station soon, as the low interest rates have dried on up.
- Zpalmtree 3y agoIf building houses isn't profitable, then who would do it?
- mcv 3y agoHow profitable are roads?