6 ms·
you’re treating narrative completeness as a prerequisite for legitimacy. that makes any systemic issue unfalsifiable unless someone can account for every market
by rambojohnson 9mo ago
you’re treating narrative completeness as a prerequisite for legitimacy. that makes any systemic issue unfalsifiable unless someone can account for every market, municipality, and incentive simultaneously.
this is an impossible burden of proof. requiring a perfectly schematic, end-to-end causal story before acknowledging harm is a convenient way to dismiss any structural concern.
pointing out that housing markets are complex doesn’t invalidate localized, repeatable effects or concentrated power. that just raises the bar of explanation until lived outcomes are dismissed as “just-so stories”, which matches the tone of your condescension.
- tptacek 9mo agoI'm treating narrative coherence as a requirement, not completeness.
- hiQloIQ 9mo agoIf narrative coherence is your expectation the only satisfactory resolution is not dig into and normalize the contractual minutiae of the legacy finance system but flush the finance industry and the politically coddled mess it created. There is no narrative coherence to be found demanding the living honor social debts, contracts of history; yes children believe these successes you never witnessed happened! That surely cannot be used for ill gains. This smells more like self selection bias. You have been successful and thus prefer care be taken tidying up systemic issues created by our ledger. Am a Thomas Jefferson fan when it comes to generational churn; the only constant political rule should be to rewrite things every couple decades or the living end up ruled by fiat decree of the dead.
- tptacek 9mo agoThese are words. "normalize the contractual minutiae of the legacy finance system"? Is there a forum where that persuades?
- krageon 9mo agoIt's what you appear to be doing. I don't really understand what your issue is with that specifically
- rambojohnson 9mo ago[flagged]
- apognwsi 9mo agoim not even disagreeing with you, but i hate that hn seems to have this penchant to point out that unreasonable assertions may still be true despite being ludicrous. can facts emerge from a hypocrite? yes of course, but prices are not affected by buying and holding a tiny supply, so given that reasonable axiom, it is reasonable to demand more comprehensive evidence.
- kelipso 9mo agoI don’t think it’s an unreasonable assertion in the first place. Just because they are holding a small portion of all houses doesn’t meant they can’t have a huge effect. The primary reason being that the portion of houses on sale is small as well. Another reason being they are huge institutions with tons of money, and thus can hold houses longer, buy houses are higher prices, influence related markets, etc.
- WalterBright 9mo ago> Just because they are holding a small portion of all houses doesn’t meant they can’t have a huge effect. There's no reason to believe that someone owning a tiny portion of the houses is setting the market price. > they are huge institutions with tons of money, and thus can hold houses longer, buy houses are higher prices, influence related markets, etc. No huge institution is willing to lose enormous sums of money waiting for vacant overpriced houses to sell. I've lived in many houses. One was in a development, and I wanted to sell it. There were several houses in it that were vacant and for sale with no offers in the previous year. I sold mine in 3 weeks. It was simple - I priced it properly, and I didn't have to pay another year of taxes, insurance, repairs, maintenance, and worry, only to have to lower the price anyway to get rid of it. A couple of the other homeowners were angry with me about that, but that was their problem.
- kelipso 9mo agoThere is reason to believe that someone owning a tiny portion of the houses is setting the market price because that tiny portion is a significant portion of the houses on sale.