4 ms·
> for doing effectively nothing you're not doing labour. You're injecting capital into the system. The person who sold the house to you, presumably, is using t
by chii 3y ago
> for doing effectively nothing
you're not doing labour. You're injecting capital into the system. The person who sold the house to you, presumably, is using the proceeds of their sale (and profit) to do something else productive.
I don't get why so many people consider taking asset risk as "doing nothing".
- moomoo11 3y agoI’m a capitalist but housing, like a place of shelter for you and your family, should be in a separate asset class. Just lock up housing so that a single individual can’t own more than 3 homes. Get married you get six houses you can own. If that’s not enough maybe you need to reassess whether it makes sense to dump money into a house or put it to some actual better use. Like creating jobs or new products.
- rcpt 3y agoYou forgot about land. Land is different from capital. A competition where we all try to outbid each other on land does nothing for the economy.
- chii 3y agoit does, just more round-a-bout. The land does not have infinite value. If you overpaid for the land, you will have lost that value to the seller. Therefore, these bidding is really just a price discovery mechanism. Unfortunately, because the transaction costs are high, and land being quite illiquid, the price doesn't rapidly converge to the "correct" one (aka, the true price might've moved faster than the bidding can catches up). > does nothing for the economy. Unless if the seller only ever reinvest into more land (and that seller also only reinvest into more land, ad-infinitum), the capital freed up from a sale will lubricate another sector of the economy.