6 ms·

Very interesting. I'll have to look into this more. It's disheartening to see the evolution of America. In the early 20th century, America was almost a sociali

by bmitc 2y ago

Very interesting. I'll have to look into this more. It's disheartening to see the evolution of America. In the early 20th century, America was almost a socialist republic with a lot of pro-socialist ideas, policies, trends, etc. But then America morphed into this anti-socialist and anti-communist fervor. But now, many Americans openly and proudly support Russia. Companies and the government sold American manufacturing and supply chains to China. And now, private equity owns America. America has been bought and sold. Even private equity has installed itself in the government All of the politicans and judges who probably couldn't even win their high school student council races now serve as senators, congressmen, and Supreme Court justices. It's not far fetched that they serve those who paid their way to election and appointment. Finding the exact number is hard, but apparently private equity owns about 10-25% of all residential homes (determining the actual number seems quite slippery and in need of far more in depth research). These are homes. It's all sickening. None of these people and now our government care about anything other than a spreadsheet that says they are worth more than they were last year. It's not hard to imagine the negative downstream effects that has on society. Edit: Removed incorrect number from an incorrect headline.

dukeyukey 2y ago
So much here is wrong I'm kind of astounded. > And apparently in 2023, private equity accounted for 44% of all residential home purchases. Not true. The actual headline is 44% of _flipped_ single-family homes were purchased by investors. Not overall purchases, and not private equity (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/15/in-shift-44-of-all-single-family-home-purchases-we/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/15/in-shift-44...) > but apparently private equity owns about 25% of all residential homes Also not true. Investors do own about 30% of US housing, but when you remember that around that number of Americans rent it's not surprising at all. Most of those investors are not private equity firms.
- bmitc 2y ago
  You can just say things that might as well be random, but it would be helpful if you pointed to actual data instead of just claiming things are not true. I didn't just make up the numbers. I found them in articles. I could have and probably should have linked them, but I also wasn't claiming someone was wrong. > So much here is wrong I'm kind of astounded. Pedantically arguing about numbers that don't have any correction of enough magnitude that negates the point doesn't really imply being "astoundingly wrong" to me. Are you saying that private equity and investors (and whatever nebulous definition people want to give that separates the two) own an acceptable amount of housing?
  - smabie 2y ago
    Well what % do they own? It doesn't seem like you even know
    - bmitc 2y ago
      Do you know? It clearly isn't zero. And like I said, it's not the main point (it was literally a side point), and it is very hard to actually find an exact number, which should tell you something. If you find an exact number that's well backed, be sure to let us know.
  - dukeyukey 2y ago
    > if you pointed to actual data instead of just claiming things are not true I did. Follow that Washington Times link. > Pedantically arguing about numbers that don't have any correction of enough magnitude We are talking about an order of magnitude here. You claimed private equity owns more than 10x more homes than is.trur, because you believed the 44% figure straight away. > Are you saying that private equity and investors (and whatever nebulous definition people want to give that separates the two) own an acceptable amount of housing? Hard to define "acceptable", but yes, I believe around 30% of homes being owned by people other than those who live in them ok. Like, my mum, who owns exactly one property (for her eventual retirement, she gets housing through work right now) counts as an investor.
- chomskyole 2y ago
  > So much here is wrong I'm kind of astounded. Let me nitpick too: is this really an accurate statement? The first rebuttal (flipped homes) highlights an actual error, though does not comment on how this error impacts on the statement made by op. It's not clear whether the second statement really highlights any issues, since it is not made clear why 25% vs 30% would change the argument. Nor is referenced how many of the investors are private equity firms. So in summary I think your opening statement really doesn't hold, given the arguments you present. Would you disagree? Is this really more an emotional argument dressed in pseudo-factual language?
- specialist 2y ago
  Does your errata challenge u/bitmc's thesis? Or must a layperson joining the chorus of critics making directionally similar points be utterly precise in every detail before their (obviously correct) broader points be taken seriously?
  - dukeyukey 2y ago
    If someone claims private equity owns 25% of homes, and the figure is actually closer to 1%, then yes, the broad point is now wrong. Completely wrong. Catastrophically wrong.
    - specialist 2y ago
      Private equity shouldn't own any amount. Does it matter if the current amount is 10% or 25% or whatever? According to you, we must first agree on the precise size of the problem, before we even consider mitigation. Good grief.
      - dukeyukey 2y ago
        Why shouldn't private equity invest or build in rental property? We're quite happy for rental companies and small investors to own them.
        specialist 2y ago
        Them owning apartment buildings remains fine. They're now buying up residential single family homes. IIRC, 10% of homes in hot markets are being bought with cash, no questions asked (wave inspections etc). These private equity funds then rent those homes, with no intention of ever selling. Meaning families are competing with funds for the already limited stock. Meaning rentals are now becoming a fixture in neighborhoods.
        sgarland 2y ago
        > We're quite happy for rental companies and small investors to own them. I’m not, actually. Housing is a human right. If profit weren’t a motive, price would necessarily drop. For those who still can’t afford it (or who choose not to – a valid personal decision), local government should own and maintain rentals at cost. Have the board be made up of and accountable to citizens.
nickff 2y ago
Where are you getting those numbers? There are a few articles that cite '44% of flipped home purchases', but not 44% of total home transactions. This source says that private equity owns 3.6% of apartments nationwide and 1.6% of rental homes: https://ourfinancialsecurity.org/2022/06/letters-to-congress-new-afr-research-estimating-minimum-number-of-private-equity-owned-housing-units/ https://ourfinancialsecurity.org/2022/06/letters-to-congress...
- bmitc 2y ago
  It does seem that in my quick search, I came across the 44% number which was then later corrected by the Washington Post but not before a bunch of other articles picked up on the wrong tagline. In terms of the actional numbers, like I said, it's looking harder and harder to actually know the real number, and I'm not The RAND Corporation. From what I can tell, the number is at minimum in the double digit percentages. But it seems like a very slippery number that depends on how you define private equity, corporation, institutional investor, etc. and of course what "home" means. As far as I can tell, my point still stands aside from the incorrect 44% number (which is still alarming, in my opinion).
  - tqi 2y ago
    This response tells me you arrived at your conclusion well before you saw any data.
    - chomskyole 2y ago
      Why? I'm sure that op read stuff before, and this is not the first time this topic was explored and maybe they came to a conclusion based on other data? Just wanted to highlight that this comment displays so much bad faith, dressed in false objectivity. Are you sure you are not saying this because of being subject to intense propaganda? Not saying that your response tells me that, but maybe something worth considering?
      - tqi 2y ago
slackfan 2y ago
[flagged]
- bmitc 2y ago
  What other examples devolved into capitalistic fascism, which is effectively what is happening to the United States?
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    All of them, no? China is state sponsored capitalism. USSR industries same thing essentially state sponsored capitalism which was taken over by the oligarchs in the Russian federation era. Vietnam also has oligarchs commanding billions today. Hard to even find an example where this isn’t the case. Maybe in Cuba things are more equitable but the US has exiled that country from quite a bit of global trade, and its hard enough raising standard of living in the carribean even with US support or even being a US territory for that matter.
    - bmitc 2y ago
      Thank you for the examples. What is the alternative path and how should countries stay socialist? Are European countries not primarily socialist republics?
      - sham1 2y ago
        > Are European countries not primarily socialist republics? No? At most we're a continent of mostly social democracies. The workers don't own the means of production here in general, although cooperatives can be quite strong here. We also have way stronger labour unions than those in the US, for example (although funnily enough, in some ways that distances us from socialist republics since those tended to have the habit of banning labour unions, ironically enough), but these things don't make our countries socialist in nature. Personally, I come from a Nordic country (Finland). Now, some American socialist pundits and politicians, like Bernie Sanders rather famously, tried to argue that the Nordic model is socialist and that we're socialist countries. They'd be wrong on that. While welfare states, we also explicitly have free market economies, which was even brought up by the Danish prime minister after the Sanders comments in 2015 in direct response to the latter. And in general, many people here would probably even be slightly offended by calling us socialists, or at least confused by it. And I think that this would also be the case for people in other parts of Europe, and especially those who were on the Eastern Bloc.

by bmitc 2y ago

dukeyukey 2y ago

So much here is wrong I'm kind of astounded. > And apparently in 2023, private equity accounted for 44% of all residential home purchases. Not true. The actual headline is 44% of _flipped_ single-family homes were purchased by investors. Not overall purchases, and not private equity (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/15/in-shift-44-of-all-single-family-home-purchases-we/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/15/in-shift-44...) > but apparently private equity owns about 25% of all residential homes Also not true. Investors do own about 30% of US housing, but when you remember that around that number of Americans rent it's not surprising at all. Most of those investors are not private equity firms.

bmitc 2y ago
You can just say things that might as well be random, but it would be helpful if you pointed to actual data instead of just claiming things are not true. I didn't just make up the numbers. I found them in articles. I could have and probably should have linked them, but I also wasn't claiming someone was wrong. > So much here is wrong I'm kind of astounded. Pedantically arguing about numbers that don't have any correction of enough magnitude that negates the point doesn't really imply being "astoundingly wrong" to me. Are you saying that private equity and investors (and whatever nebulous definition people want to give that separates the two) own an acceptable amount of housing?
- smabie 2y ago
  Well what % do they own? It doesn't seem like you even know
  - bmitc 2y ago
    Do you know? It clearly isn't zero. And like I said, it's not the main point (it was literally a side point), and it is very hard to actually find an exact number, which should tell you something. If you find an exact number that's well backed, be sure to let us know.
- dukeyukey 2y ago
  > if you pointed to actual data instead of just claiming things are not true I did. Follow that Washington Times link. > Pedantically arguing about numbers that don't have any correction of enough magnitude We are talking about an order of magnitude here. You claimed private equity owns more than 10x more homes than is.trur, because you believed the 44% figure straight away. > Are you saying that private equity and investors (and whatever nebulous definition people want to give that separates the two) own an acceptable amount of housing? Hard to define "acceptable", but yes, I believe around 30% of homes being owned by people other than those who live in them ok. Like, my mum, who owns exactly one property (for her eventual retirement, she gets housing through work right now) counts as an investor.
chomskyole 2y ago
> So much here is wrong I'm kind of astounded. Let me nitpick too: is this really an accurate statement? The first rebuttal (flipped homes) highlights an actual error, though does not comment on how this error impacts on the statement made by op. It's not clear whether the second statement really highlights any issues, since it is not made clear why 25% vs 30% would change the argument. Nor is referenced how many of the investors are private equity firms. So in summary I think your opening statement really doesn't hold, given the arguments you present. Would you disagree? Is this really more an emotional argument dressed in pseudo-factual language?
specialist 2y ago
Does your errata challenge u/bitmc's thesis? Or must a layperson joining the chorus of critics making directionally similar points be utterly precise in every detail before their (obviously correct) broader points be taken seriously?
- dukeyukey 2y ago
  If someone claims private equity owns 25% of homes, and the figure is actually closer to 1%, then yes, the broad point is now wrong. Completely wrong. Catastrophically wrong.
  - specialist 2y ago
    Private equity shouldn't own any amount. Does it matter if the current amount is 10% or 25% or whatever? According to you, we must first agree on the precise size of the problem, before we even consider mitigation. Good grief.
    - dukeyukey 2y ago
      Why shouldn't private equity invest or build in rental property? We're quite happy for rental companies and small investors to own them.
      - specialist 2y ago
        Them owning apartment buildings remains fine. They're now buying up residential single family homes. IIRC, 10% of homes in hot markets are being bought with cash, no questions asked (wave inspections etc). These private equity funds then rent those homes, with no intention of ever selling. Meaning families are competing with funds for the already limited stock. Meaning rentals are now becoming a fixture in neighborhoods.
      - sgarland 2y ago
        > We're quite happy for rental companies and small investors to own them. I’m not, actually. Housing is a human right. If profit weren’t a motive, price would necessarily drop. For those who still can’t afford it (or who choose not to – a valid personal decision), local government should own and maintain rentals at cost. Have the board be made up of and accountable to citizens.

nickff 2y ago

Where are you getting those numbers? There are a few articles that cite '44% of flipped home purchases', but not 44% of total home transactions. This source says that private equity owns 3.6% of apartments nationwide and 1.6% of rental homes: https://ourfinancialsecurity.org/2022/06/letters-to-congress-new-afr-research-estimating-minimum-number-of-private-equity-owned-housing-units/ https://ourfinancialsecurity.org/2022/06/letters-to-congress...

bmitc 2y ago
It does seem that in my quick search, I came across the 44% number which was then later corrected by the Washington Post but not before a bunch of other articles picked up on the wrong tagline. In terms of the actional numbers, like I said, it's looking harder and harder to actually know the real number, and I'm not The RAND Corporation. From what I can tell, the number is at minimum in the double digit percentages. But it seems like a very slippery number that depends on how you define private equity, corporation, institutional investor, etc. and of course what "home" means. As far as I can tell, my point still stands aside from the incorrect 44% number (which is still alarming, in my opinion).
- tqi 2y ago
  This response tells me you arrived at your conclusion well before you saw any data.
  - chomskyole 2y ago
    Why? I'm sure that op read stuff before, and this is not the first time this topic was explored and maybe they came to a conclusion based on other data? Just wanted to highlight that this comment displays so much bad faith, dressed in false objectivity. Are you sure you are not saying this because of being subject to intense propaganda? Not saying that your response tells me that, but maybe something worth considering?
    - tqi 2y ago

slackfan 2y ago

[flagged]

bmitc 2y ago
What other examples devolved into capitalistic fascism, which is effectively what is happening to the United States?
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  All of them, no? China is state sponsored capitalism. USSR industries same thing essentially state sponsored capitalism which was taken over by the oligarchs in the Russian federation era. Vietnam also has oligarchs commanding billions today. Hard to even find an example where this isn’t the case. Maybe in Cuba things are more equitable but the US has exiled that country from quite a bit of global trade, and its hard enough raising standard of living in the carribean even with US support or even being a US territory for that matter.
  - bmitc 2y ago
    Thank you for the examples. What is the alternative path and how should countries stay socialist? Are European countries not primarily socialist republics?
    - sham1 2y ago
      > Are European countries not primarily socialist republics? No? At most we're a continent of mostly social democracies. The workers don't own the means of production here in general, although cooperatives can be quite strong here. We also have way stronger labour unions than those in the US, for example (although funnily enough, in some ways that distances us from socialist republics since those tended to have the habit of banning labour unions, ironically enough), but these things don't make our countries socialist in nature. Personally, I come from a Nordic country (Finland). Now, some American socialist pundits and politicians, like Bernie Sanders rather famously, tried to argue that the Nordic model is socialist and that we're socialist countries. They'd be wrong on that. While welfare states, we also explicitly have free market economies, which was even brought up by the Danish prime minister after the Sanders comments in 2015 in direct response to the latter. And in general, many people here would probably even be slightly offended by calling us socialists, or at least confused by it. And I think that this would also be the case for people in other parts of Europe, and especially those who were on the Eastern Bloc.