5 ms·
The solution is to make the property-as-an-investment a less lucrative perspective by occasionally sabotaging the property value of (but not the ability to safe
by __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
The solution is to make the property-as-an-investment a less lucrative perspective by occasionally sabotaging the property value of (but not the ability to safely live in) houses that are not being used to house people.
A few high profile jury nullifications would probably be sufficient, but we gotta be the rational economic agents that the theories think we are and work together on this.
- lazide 2y agoThe issue is it takes significant pressure over time for any real effect to occur here. Think San Francisco or New York in the 70’s type of ‘urban decay’. [https://amp.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/18/welcome-to-fear-city-the-inside-story-of-new-yorks-civil-war-40-years-on][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_in_the_1970s] https://amp.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/18/welcome-to-fe... A one-off broken window, or never cutting your grass isn’t going to do anything. Realistically? High central bank rates for awhile does the same thing. 1974 had a fed rate of 10.74%, 1975 5.82%, etc. [https://www.macrotrends.net/2015/fed-funds-rate-historical-chart https://www.macrotrends.net/2015/fed-funds-rate-historical-c...]
- __MatrixMan__ 2y agoBut we don't control the fed. The degree to which these investments are risky is our only lever.
- lazide 2y agoUnless you’re forming your own street gang (or conspiracy in the city planning dept.), my point is that you aren’t meaningfully influencing how risky the investment is either.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y agoI was going to go with "union", but I suppose "gang" does the same thing, just so long as it's a significant percentage of the population, organized and acting with restraint and purpose. Because I agree, a random act here and there wouldn't do the trick.