3 ms·

Utter unmitigated disaster for society, community, family and people. But hey, money is more important than anything and nothing should constrain the markets,

Utter unmitigated disaster for society, community, family and people. But hey, money is more important than anything and nothing should constrain the markets, eh? Politicians don’t care, people with houses don’t care, the rich don’t care. We’ve made a future in which there’s no social contract, where young people have nothing and no home and no prospect of ever owning a home. By this measure, capitalism has failed entirely to serve the people. There will be consequences.

speakfreely 2y ago
It's just regulatory capture by people with an interest in the real estate asset class, which mainly consists of two groups: (1) investors and (2) people whose net worth is primarily derived from their house (read: poor people). Both of these seemingly opposing groups have an incentive to see property prices appreciate and avoid any obvious solution that would fix the problem, i.e. higher property tax rates for properties that aren't primary residences.
- BoiledCabbage 2y ago
  > It's just regulatory capture What regulation is being captured? I've noticed this on HN. Anytime thr market produces a negative result for society, rather than acknowledge it, it gets blamed on some imaginary regulatory capture. Like there there is an ability to accept that markets produce negative results for society - it's always blamed on some external force.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    This is an interesting thought. I have not thought about it like that before. Like, what are the odds some local 'boomer NIMBYs' or whoever the scapegoat is succeed about everywhere.
  - spacebanana7 2y ago
    > Like there there is an ability to accept that markets produce negative results for society That's not mutually exclusive with regulatory capture. The problem of excessively large motor vehicles in the US is contributed to by both deliberate quirks of the tax system and a zero sum bidding war to be the biggest on the road, for example.
    - BoiledCabbage 2y ago
      Peas aren't mutually exclusive with turkey. But nobody benefits when every time we see peas we call them "turkey".
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >(2) people whose net worth is primarily derived from their house (read: poor people) If these people were smart, they'd realize that rising house values don't help them, because 1) they can't make money on a house they're still living in, they have to sell it first, and then where are they going to move to? and 2) rising house values means rising tax assessments which means their mortgage bill will increase to pay the higher property taxes.
BenFranklin100 2y ago
Institutional investors should have little if any impact on prices. As long as they rent them out, which they will, this will have not affect housing supply. If anything, people who can’t afford to buy will have more rental options. The underlying problem is that city councils ban the construction of most new homes. This has led to a supply shortage. The wealthier among us are thus forced to bid up the price of cheaper, older homes. Landlords can charge more for existing properties too. We need to change the laws so that we build lots more homes. I do. agree strongly with your point about the loss of a social contract. If you’re interested in helping fix this problem, join the YIMBY movement.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- 6stringronin 2y ago
  They will have an impact on rent prices driving the people who can't afford to buy to new strain.

speakfreely 2y ago

It's just regulatory capture by people with an interest in the real estate asset class, which mainly consists of two groups: (1) investors and (2) people whose net worth is primarily derived from their house (read: poor people). Both of these seemingly opposing groups have an incentive to see property prices appreciate and avoid any obvious solution that would fix the problem, i.e. higher property tax rates for properties that aren't primary residences.

BoiledCabbage 2y ago
> It's just regulatory capture What regulation is being captured? I've noticed this on HN. Anytime thr market produces a negative result for society, rather than acknowledge it, it gets blamed on some imaginary regulatory capture. Like there there is an ability to accept that markets produce negative results for society - it's always blamed on some external force.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  This is an interesting thought. I have not thought about it like that before. Like, what are the odds some local 'boomer NIMBYs' or whoever the scapegoat is succeed about everywhere.
- spacebanana7 2y ago
  > Like there there is an ability to accept that markets produce negative results for society That's not mutually exclusive with regulatory capture. The problem of excessively large motor vehicles in the US is contributed to by both deliberate quirks of the tax system and a zero sum bidding war to be the biggest on the road, for example.
  - BoiledCabbage 2y ago
    Peas aren't mutually exclusive with turkey. But nobody benefits when every time we see peas we call them "turkey".
shiroiushi 2y ago
>(2) people whose net worth is primarily derived from their house (read: poor people) If these people were smart, they'd realize that rising house values don't help them, because 1) they can't make money on a house they're still living in, they have to sell it first, and then where are they going to move to? and 2) rising house values means rising tax assessments which means their mortgage bill will increase to pay the higher property taxes.

BenFranklin100 2y ago

Institutional investors should have little if any impact on prices. As long as they rent them out, which they will, this will have not affect housing supply. If anything, people who can’t afford to buy will have more rental options. The underlying problem is that city councils ban the construction of most new homes. This has led to a supply shortage. The wealthier among us are thus forced to bid up the price of cheaper, older homes. Landlords can charge more for existing properties too. We need to change the laws so that we build lots more homes. I do. agree strongly with your point about the loss of a social contract. If you’re interested in helping fix this problem, join the YIMBY movement.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
6stringronin 2y ago
They will have an impact on rent prices driving the people who can't afford to buy to new strain.