3 ms·
That is my sentiment as well. It's as if they assumed all else would remain equal, even though we know that's not the case. It's like when Ben Shapiro said th
by Tade0 2y ago
That is my sentiment as well.
It's as if they assumed all else would remain equal, even though we know that's not the case.
It's like when Ben Shapiro said that if people were really anticipating warming oceans to engulf coastal cities, they would be selling their properties, to which one man rebutted with "To whom? To fucking Aquaman?".
- mindslight 2y agoYeah, it's tough because it feels like more trashing and churn that will never lead to any sort of understanding, just like where they had come from. Optimizing for line-goes-up is exactly how we got to this place where most women are forced to work full time. Then if they want kids, their family has to scavenge that now-additional time from somewhere. It's more egalitarian for sure, but the economic system has transmuted it into equality of losing. I don't know if that rebuttal about oceanfront property really makes sense - even if you're concerned today about future destruction, you can generally find a buyer who won't be. I think the situation is more like people will happily continue enjoying what they have, and plan on being bailed out when something catastrophic does happen. There are also ways to get the equity out of the properties without having to sell them (eg reverse mortgage), and the carrying costs likely aren't that high having been mortgaged under ZIRP. So like the rest of the property bubble, the calculus is ongoing mortgage payment versus expected appreciation, not any type of core asset value.