3 ms·

For n decades now (the value of n depends on who you ask) most of the money circulating in the system is money made on money, or in general volatile money. In t

For n decades now (the value of n depends on who you ask) most of the money circulating in the system is money made on money, or in general volatile money. In these setups, scarce resources become useful as a "safety net" in various pockets of the economy. Natural resources come under this category. Land too, comes under this category. Ideally you want the only competition for housing land to be multiple humans wishing to live there. The homogenity of human wants and needs will ensure you don't get ridiculously unpredictable outcomes. You will also benefit from network effects. However, BlackRocks use for land is completely different. So many things stop mattering when the land is being pieced up and the risk distributed to a million retirement accounts. Over-financialisation hurts the intended use of scarce resources. Today, no human has the ability to consider it important owning independent personal access to scarce resources such as farmland and water bodies. Similarly, I predict, people will be forced to stop wanting personal housing land. When, is the question.

sokoloff 1y ago
Six generations ago, over 80% of Americans worked in farming. Owning your family's farmland made sense as a means to even out the land you farmed versus the land you owned. As farming industrialized, became more efficient, and food became readily available with less than 2% of Americans working in farming. In that world, the amount of farmland you needed to personally own to offset the amount you personally farmed was zero. Will the same happen for housing? Everyone starts out naturally "short" one unit of housing. To gain housing, you can rent or buy it. Buying it puts you "even" in the same way as above: your ownership and your usage is in balance. I don't see the factor that would cause people to stop wanting personal housing land.

sokoloff 1y ago

Six generations ago, over 80% of Americans worked in farming. Owning your family's farmland made sense as a means to even out the land you farmed versus the land you owned. As farming industrialized, became more efficient, and food became readily available with less than 2% of Americans working in farming. In that world, the amount of farmland you needed to personally own to offset the amount you personally farmed was zero. Will the same happen for housing? Everyone starts out naturally "short" one unit of housing. To gain housing, you can rent or buy it. Buying it puts you "even" in the same way as above: your ownership and your usage is in balance. I don't see the factor that would cause people to stop wanting personal housing land.