4 ms·

Seems reasonable to me, a very anti Trump individual. Now deliver. And which of his buddies does this benefit? I'm trying to think if there will be ramificati

by codyb 9mo ago

Seems reasonable to me, a very anti Trump individual. Now deliver. And which of his buddies does this benefit? I'm trying to think if there will be ramifications to this... - Obviously forced divestment of all Wall St owned single family homes could impact housing prices which is both the point, but of course... also hurts many families borrowing power and net worth - I guess that crash could potentially have people paying lots of money for homes that aren't worth that much anymore, which sounds pretty negative - Of course... wow, would it be nice to be able to afford something in the city I love (which I doubt will be impacted by this) Of course, no clear plan here. Just Trump saying something, why wasn't the "Trump says" part kept in the headline here?

montyanne 9mo ago
[dead]
nerdjon 9mo ago
I am also trying to think of what else could actually be fueling this, since it sounds very... not republican. Quite literally the opposite. Like you said that also assumes it actually happens and isn't another incoherent ramble that is conveniently forgotten about or claimed he never said. I mean if its legit I will cheer it on... but I remain skeptical.
- xp84 9mo ago
  It's mostly a made-up issue to begin with - so this would be a popular policy, easy to pass because there won't be much opposition, and it'll be easy to point to and say "We fixed that problem."
- usefulcat 9mo ago
  The R party has changed so radically that it's hardly recognizable any more. As a result, "not republican" is no longer a very meaningful description. I think the most likely explanation is pretty simple. Whenever people are unhappy with their economic situation, at the ballot box they take it out on whoever is currently in power, logic be damned. Politicians know this.
anonymars 9mo ago
> also hurts many families borrowing power and net worth This is part of the crux, isn't it? It's a backbone of families' wealth and positioned as an investment. So there seems to be no winning: either choke off the young trying to buy or crack the nest egg of the old See also: Bitcoin and the like (wild value fluctuations are the hallmark of a good currency) Related article of interest: https://archinect.com/news/article/150496266/is-this-swiss-housing-model-the-answer-to-affordable-housing https://archinect.com/news/article/150496266/is-this-swiss-h...
- Sohcahtoa82 9mo ago
  > either choke off the young trying to buy or crack the nest egg of the old The simple fact is, housing can either be affordable xor an investment[0]. Affordable means the prices are flat relative to inflation, which makes it a terrible investment. If it's a good investment, that means the price is going up faster than inflation, which quickly makes it unaffordable. [0] I want to be clear that I'm referring to housing as an investment to mean buying a house purely for profit purposes, ie, to flip or to rent out. Buying a house to live in, rather than renting the house you live in, can be considered an "investment", but I mean to explicitly exclude that usage of "investment" in this comment.
  - tbrownaw 9mo ago
    Sure it can be an investment even with no capital gains, there's still income from charging rent.
    - Sohcahtoa82 9mo ago
      Which still contributes to unaffordability. A house bought for the purpose of renting out is a house that could have gone to someone who wanted to buy it. It creates upward pressure on housing prices. I mean, I get it. There are some people that truly do want to rent a house because they know the living situation is temporary. But we have a generation that was able to buy houses during an economic boom where you could buy a house with an entry-level job, and once that house was paid off, they started buying up houses with their extra money to rent out, and it was so lucrative that prices have skyrocketed and now people in their 20s can't buy houses without a decently lucrative job. Obviously, there are many factors at work here, but buying or building houses with the intent to rent them out is certainly a contributor. I just think about the fact that I bought my house in 2015 for about $340K, and it's now worth about $600K, an 80% climb in just 10 years, and I think that's absurd, not to mention a bad thing for society overall.
tootie 9mo ago
Well, there's no explanation for how this will affect any currently owned properties. So maybe it won't do much of anything. And something important to understand about private equity owning homes, is that they tend to descend on specific geos where the supply allows buying in scale. If they are forced to divest, it very well could crash a few cities or towns. And given that the aforementioned supply was heavily bent towards distressed areas, the crash could be brutal. It will likely have close to zero impact on high-demand areas.

by codyb 9mo ago

montyanne 9mo ago

[dead]

nerdjon 9mo ago

I am also trying to think of what else could actually be fueling this, since it sounds very... not republican. Quite literally the opposite. Like you said that also assumes it actually happens and isn't another incoherent ramble that is conveniently forgotten about or claimed he never said. I mean if its legit I will cheer it on... but I remain skeptical.

xp84 9mo ago
It's mostly a made-up issue to begin with - so this would be a popular policy, easy to pass because there won't be much opposition, and it'll be easy to point to and say "We fixed that problem."
usefulcat 9mo ago
The R party has changed so radically that it's hardly recognizable any more. As a result, "not republican" is no longer a very meaningful description. I think the most likely explanation is pretty simple. Whenever people are unhappy with their economic situation, at the ballot box they take it out on whoever is currently in power, logic be damned. Politicians know this.

anonymars 9mo ago

> also hurts many families borrowing power and net worth This is part of the crux, isn't it? It's a backbone of families' wealth and positioned as an investment. So there seems to be no winning: either choke off the young trying to buy or crack the nest egg of the old See also: Bitcoin and the like (wild value fluctuations are the hallmark of a good currency) Related article of interest: https://archinect.com/news/article/150496266/is-this-swiss-housing-model-the-answer-to-affordable-housing https://archinect.com/news/article/150496266/is-this-swiss-h...

Sohcahtoa82 9mo ago
> either choke off the young trying to buy or crack the nest egg of the old The simple fact is, housing can either be affordable xor an investment[0]. Affordable means the prices are flat relative to inflation, which makes it a terrible investment. If it's a good investment, that means the price is going up faster than inflation, which quickly makes it unaffordable. [0] I want to be clear that I'm referring to housing as an investment to mean buying a house purely for profit purposes, ie, to flip or to rent out. Buying a house to live in, rather than renting the house you live in, can be considered an "investment", but I mean to explicitly exclude that usage of "investment" in this comment.
- tbrownaw 9mo ago
  Sure it can be an investment even with no capital gains, there's still income from charging rent.
  - Sohcahtoa82 9mo ago
    Which still contributes to unaffordability. A house bought for the purpose of renting out is a house that could have gone to someone who wanted to buy it. It creates upward pressure on housing prices. I mean, I get it. There are some people that truly do want to rent a house because they know the living situation is temporary. But we have a generation that was able to buy houses during an economic boom where you could buy a house with an entry-level job, and once that house was paid off, they started buying up houses with their extra money to rent out, and it was so lucrative that prices have skyrocketed and now people in their 20s can't buy houses without a decently lucrative job. Obviously, there are many factors at work here, but buying or building houses with the intent to rent them out is certainly a contributor. I just think about the fact that I bought my house in 2015 for about $340K, and it's now worth about $600K, an 80% climb in just 10 years, and I think that's absurd, not to mention a bad thing for society overall.

tootie 9mo ago

Well, there's no explanation for how this will affect any currently owned properties. So maybe it won't do much of anything. And something important to understand about private equity owning homes, is that they tend to descend on specific geos where the supply allows buying in scale. If they are forced to divest, it very well could crash a few cities or towns. And given that the aforementioned supply was heavily bent towards distressed areas, the crash could be brutal. It will likely have close to zero impact on high-demand areas.