3 ms·

Not sure. But I’ve been hearing of this being an issue from both progressives, leftists as well as conservatives and rightists. Maybe they’re all misinformed

by mc32 10mo ago

Not sure. But I’ve been hearing of this being an issue from both progressives, leftists as well as conservatives and rightists. Maybe they’re all misinformed by their bubbles, but there seems to be some smoke…

Aurornis 10mo ago
It's a populist issue because it sounds vaguely correct and being angry at Wall Street is ever popular. That's also why this idea is being floated before the mid terms. That doesn't make it correct.
epistasis 10mo ago
It's because of emotionally charged response. Leftists largely don't want corporations owning houses, because it's "impure" and capitalist. Rightists largely don't want renters to live in homes that used to be exclusionary on the basis of being able to buy a home. Though there's crossover on the reasons, of course.
- kelipso 10mo ago
  Honestly, the argument on the other side seems like emotionally charged arguments due to TDS and not wanting to give Trump any credit. It seems obvious to most people that institutional investors should not be allowed near single family homes and you would need quite a strong argument to persuade otherwise.
  - epistasis 10mo ago
    Which side is TDS and why? I've heard both of these opinions expressed quite freely over the past few years, without any association with Trump. However, most instances of TDS seem to not "derangement" but "normal human emotion to me." > It seems obvious to most people that institutional investors should not be allowed near single family homes What is obvious about this? They have always invested in single family homes. Can you provide a priniciple or rationale? If it's something other than renters or "corporations bad but I won't explain further" then I'd love to hear it!
    - kelipso 10mo ago
      Homes are for people to live in, not asset classes for investors to play with. There, you have the apparently obscure principle that no one has ever heard of. I’d love to hear whatever economist inspired argument against it lol.
      - epistasis 10mo ago
        I have no argument really in favor of corporate ownership, but I don't find the arguments against convincing in terms of helping normal people. Rental housing is an important part of housing, and giving access to the schools in suburbs through rental opportunities seems good to me. The people I know who have rented a SFH in my area have had better experiences with corporate landlords than home-owning landlords because the home-owning landlords frequently evict their tenants so that a relative can move in, which is super disruptive. California allows homeowners to evict people with very little warning that way, without cause. Corporations can't do that and also follow the law better. As far as investing: Every home owner treats it as their primary asset. Which is the only reason that corporations are getting in on the game: people living in their own homes have changed regulatory structures so much that it's rigged in favor of owners. Single family homes owed by corporations are rented out to people to live in them, giving access to neighborhoods that were not accessible before. If you think that's "economist inspired" well it's no more inspired than your statements!
andrewmutz 10mo ago
Left-populists and right-populists like to frame issues as being a conflict between the elites and the common man. Banning big banks from owning homes is a perfect example of this. It's fine to ban big banks from buying homes and wont do damage to the nation, but don't expect it to solve the problem. High housing prices are due to zoning-based supply restrictions. These are entrenched due to politically active NIMBY voters. Actually fixing the housing crisis means addressing zoning, but that doesn't fit the elite vs common man narrative so gets ignored by the populists.
- tbrownaw 10mo ago
  > It's fine to ban big banks from buying homes and wont do damage to the nation It makes things slightly worse for people who want a non-apartment house but think they might move soon.

by mc32 10mo ago

Aurornis 10mo ago

It's a populist issue because it sounds vaguely correct and being angry at Wall Street is ever popular. That's also why this idea is being floated before the mid terms. That doesn't make it correct.

epistasis 10mo ago

It's because of emotionally charged response. Leftists largely don't want corporations owning houses, because it's "impure" and capitalist. Rightists largely don't want renters to live in homes that used to be exclusionary on the basis of being able to buy a home. Though there's crossover on the reasons, of course.

kelipso 10mo ago
Honestly, the argument on the other side seems like emotionally charged arguments due to TDS and not wanting to give Trump any credit. It seems obvious to most people that institutional investors should not be allowed near single family homes and you would need quite a strong argument to persuade otherwise.
- epistasis 10mo ago
  Which side is TDS and why? I've heard both of these opinions expressed quite freely over the past few years, without any association with Trump. However, most instances of TDS seem to not "derangement" but "normal human emotion to me." > It seems obvious to most people that institutional investors should not be allowed near single family homes What is obvious about this? They have always invested in single family homes. Can you provide a priniciple or rationale? If it's something other than renters or "corporations bad but I won't explain further" then I'd love to hear it!
  - kelipso 10mo ago
    Homes are for people to live in, not asset classes for investors to play with. There, you have the apparently obscure principle that no one has ever heard of. I’d love to hear whatever economist inspired argument against it lol.
    - epistasis 10mo ago
      I have no argument really in favor of corporate ownership, but I don't find the arguments against convincing in terms of helping normal people. Rental housing is an important part of housing, and giving access to the schools in suburbs through rental opportunities seems good to me. The people I know who have rented a SFH in my area have had better experiences with corporate landlords than home-owning landlords because the home-owning landlords frequently evict their tenants so that a relative can move in, which is super disruptive. California allows homeowners to evict people with very little warning that way, without cause. Corporations can't do that and also follow the law better. As far as investing: Every home owner treats it as their primary asset. Which is the only reason that corporations are getting in on the game: people living in their own homes have changed regulatory structures so much that it's rigged in favor of owners. Single family homes owed by corporations are rented out to people to live in them, giving access to neighborhoods that were not accessible before. If you think that's "economist inspired" well it's no more inspired than your statements!

andrewmutz 10mo ago

Left-populists and right-populists like to frame issues as being a conflict between the elites and the common man. Banning big banks from owning homes is a perfect example of this. It's fine to ban big banks from buying homes and wont do damage to the nation, but don't expect it to solve the problem. High housing prices are due to zoning-based supply restrictions. These are entrenched due to politically active NIMBY voters. Actually fixing the housing crisis means addressing zoning, but that doesn't fit the elite vs common man narrative so gets ignored by the populists.

tbrownaw 10mo ago
> It's fine to ban big banks from buying homes and wont do damage to the nation It makes things slightly worse for people who want a non-apartment house but think they might move soon.