User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 3:36:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CTYC313: That's too boomer of a take to b posted by an actual boomer.  Instead of ownership number that don't give an accurate picture of today's market, look at the percentage of homes bought by institutional investors. While that still isn't the only reason home prices are absurdly high, it's still one of the reasons. Lack of new build, population increases outpacing housing stock increases, growing home sizes, diminishing household sizes, regulatory excess, and highly restrictive zoning are all adding up to unsustainable housing prices. You can't avocado toast your way out of the mess we're in. It isn't just shitty fiscal policy and gen Z doom scrolling that made my house value double since I bought if a few years ago. We have a winner. You can also add it, natural disasters and COVID lost productivity in there and I think you’d have a pretty good summary of how we got here. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 3:38:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheRealBluedog]
[#2]
All of the morons, edge lords, and just downright stupid motherfuckers who are saying that you are against capitalism if you support disallowing unfair competition don’t understand capitalism, and certainly don’t understand the history of our country. Ever heard of antitrust laws? Ever heard of unfair competition? Ever heard of crony capitalism?
Investing in residential real estate is the ultimate price fixing scheme. You invest in something, the price of which is entirely dependent upon supply, and you can actually drive up the value of your investment just by buying it In sufficiently large numbers. This should not be allowed. If a stupid person wants to challenge me on this, you’ll have to do something to get my attention because I don’t have a lot of time to deal with morons today. |
|
|
|
TUN
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 3:41:14 PM EDT
[#3]
Ethics and business decisions are two things that never go together.
I've made a ton of $ selling homes to those hedgies. Easy too. They just stroke a check out and deal is done. Stop being poor. Bla bla bla. I would say though, we shouldn't be letting non-citizens buy property at all. That's a bigger problem than just hedgies. I'm looking at you, china. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 3:42:46 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Riply21: Yes I want a rollback of government regulation I also want personal liability for the people that run companies. I would also add bribing public officials accepting bribes and using government positions for personal enrichment to treason laws Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Riply21: Originally Posted By 1Andy2: So you disagree with the people who want to enact capital controls and limit how many houses people and corporations can own? I would also add bribing public officials accepting bribes and using government positions for personal enrichment to treason laws You’ve got my attention. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 4:01:40 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Duck_Hunt: You said this in the original post I quoted. “The single biggest reason Trump is likely going to win this election is that Biden/Harris shit the bed so hard that even the suburban house wives are noticing how expensive things have become.” I mostly agree with that statement, in particular that trump will win. However I made the points I made to shed some light on how looking at trump as an answer for this is moronic, given his track record and current endorsers. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Duck_Hunt: You said this in the original post I quoted. “The single biggest reason Trump is likely going to win this election is that Biden/Harris shit the bed so hard that even the suburban house wives are noticing how expensive things have become.” I mostly agree with that statement, in particular that trump will win. However I made the points I made to shed some light on how looking at trump as an answer for this is moronic, given his track record and current endorsers. That has nothing to do with the topic. You are taking a large problem, specifically how hedge funds purchasing starter homes have detrimental effects on the nation, and attempting to shift it to bashing one guy. Whether Trump will, or will not fix the problem is irrelevant. For voters a change in the status quo "may" fix the problem. Originally Posted By Duck_Hunt: That same line also mentions how expensive things have become and they have. Look at what happened to vehicle prices for example during 2020  . That being said i’ve seen people here claim that their grocery bills have doubled since 2020. I’m simply pointing out that it’s not the case for us and I believe that’s overblown. Certainly other things have doubled or more… like RE and vehicles.You can certainly feel how you wish to feel. However, you concede other things have doubled or more. Groceries being up 10%, 50%, or 100% does not matter to the discussion at hand. As you noted groceries are more expensive even if you order the same thing in the same quantities. If cost increases in food/housing/ necessities are greater than wage increases to the point people can no longer afford what they used to be able to afford, or save to buy what they used to be able to save to buy then people are going to be very pissed off. The actual percentage increases of each item are irrelevant if collectively they add up to being more than an individual can afford. Additionally many prices are going to rise and fall regionally based on a wide variety of factors including transportation costs, and other conditions. When the communist mob burns your house down because they are sick of choosing between ramen noodles or heat for their 10' x 8' tiny hovel while working 80 hours a week to not die you could definitely make your last words "Trump appoints bad people and I do not think groceries went up as much as some people on GD claimed!" At the end of the day we would all likely be better off if their hard work produced the same results as prior generations. Less renters and more homeowners would produce better results for everyone, nationally. Finding ways to do that by balancing the harm to corporations bottom line, and getting young workers into homes to prevent molotovs through windows is the topic at hand. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 4:02:30 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Elijah1: Why would you limit the free markets? Do you realize that a lot of foreign investors including commie Chinese are buying homes and land in astronomical amounts? Do you think a free and open market like this leads this and capitalism with no parameters makes a strong USA? NOT!! |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 4:13:13 PM EDT
[#7]
I'm surprised by the number of people bragging about being morally and ethically flexible. I guess spines are hard to find now a days.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 4:18:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Duck_Hunt]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By detharin: That has nothing to do with the topic. You are taking a large problem, specifically how hedge funds purchasing starter homes have detrimental effects on the nation, and attempting to shift it to bashing one guy. Whether Trump will, or will not fix the problem is irrelevant. For voters a change in the status quo "may" fix the problem. You can certainly feel how you wish to feel. However, you concede other things have doubled or more. Groceries being up 10%, 50%, or 100% does not matter to the discussion at hand. As you noted groceries are more expensive even if you order the same thing in the same quantities. If cost increases in food/housing/ necessities are greater than wage increases to the point people can no longer afford what they used to be able to afford, or save to buy what they used to be able to save to buy then people are going to be very pissed off. The actual percentage increases of each item are irrelevant if collectively they add up to being more than an individual can afford. Additionally many prices are going to rise and fall regionally based on a wide variety of factors including transportation costs, and other conditions. When the communist mob burns your house down because they are sick of choosing between ramen noodles or heat for their 10' x 8' tiny hovel while working 80 hours a week to not die you could definitely make your last words "Trump appoints bad people and I do not think groceries went up as much as some people on GD claimed!" At the end of the day we would all likely be better off if their hard work produced the same results as prior generations. Less renters and more homeowners would produce better results for everyone, nationally. Finding ways to do that by balancing the harm to corporations bottom line, and getting young workers into homes to prevent molotovs through windows is the topic at hand. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By detharin: Originally Posted By Duck_Hunt: You said this in the original post I quoted. “The single biggest reason Trump is likely going to win this election is that Biden/Harris shit the bed so hard that even the suburban house wives are noticing how expensive things have become.” I mostly agree with that statement, in particular that trump will win. However I made the points I made to shed some light on how looking at trump as an answer for this is moronic, given his track record and current endorsers. That has nothing to do with the topic. You are taking a large problem, specifically how hedge funds purchasing starter homes have detrimental effects on the nation, and attempting to shift it to bashing one guy. Whether Trump will, or will not fix the problem is irrelevant. For voters a change in the status quo "may" fix the problem. Originally Posted By Duck_Hunt: That same line also mentions how expensive things have become and they have. Look at what happened to vehicle prices for example during 2020 . That being said i’ve seen people here claim that their grocery bills have doubled since 2020. I’m simply pointing out that it’s not the case for us and I believe that’s overblown. Certainly other things have doubled or more… like RE and vehicles.You can certainly feel how you wish to feel. However, you concede other things have doubled or more. Groceries being up 10%, 50%, or 100% does not matter to the discussion at hand. As you noted groceries are more expensive even if you order the same thing in the same quantities. If cost increases in food/housing/ necessities are greater than wage increases to the point people can no longer afford what they used to be able to afford, or save to buy what they used to be able to save to buy then people are going to be very pissed off. The actual percentage increases of each item are irrelevant if collectively they add up to being more than an individual can afford. Additionally many prices are going to rise and fall regionally based on a wide variety of factors including transportation costs, and other conditions. When the communist mob burns your house down because they are sick of choosing between ramen noodles or heat for their 10' x 8' tiny hovel while working 80 hours a week to not die you could definitely make your last words "Trump appoints bad people and I do not think groceries went up as much as some people on GD claimed!" At the end of the day we would all likely be better off if their hard work produced the same results as prior generations. Less renters and more homeowners would produce better results for everyone, nationally. Finding ways to do that by balancing the harm to corporations bottom line, and getting young workers into homes to prevent molotovs through windows is the topic at hand. The rub here is that trump isn’t a change in the status quo. I didn’t realize pointing out facts was bashing. I’m sorry you took it that way. You were the one who brought him up and it has everything to do with the topic at hand. Yes the economy is fucked for multiple reasons. Every administration in the last 100+ years is culpable in that. It appears you are mis representing or not understanding my point. The fact of the matter is that the costs of goods and real estate were going up under trump. The RE market in particular had grown to a huge bubble before Covid came around. The ceo of blackrock and people who are affiliated with the Rothchilds were driving his economic policy. In that regard trump is the same as all the rest… literally the status quo. Bush kicked the can, Obama kicked the can, Trump kicked the can and Biden kicked the can.. this cycle will only continue. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 4:30:57 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1Andy2: I'm more disturbed by the number of people who think government is the solution.  When you're in a gun fight do you decide to win by saying "guns are bad"? Or do you shoot back with a gun? |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 4:33:30 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Duck_Hunt: The rub here is that trump isn’t a change in the status quo. I didn’t realize pointing out facts was bashing. I’m sorry you took it that way. You were the one who brought him up and it has everything to do with the topic at hand. Yes the economy is fucked for multiple reasons. Every administration in the last 100+ years is culpable in that. It appears you are mis representing or not understanding what my point. The fact of the matter is that the costs of goods and real estate were going up under trump. The RE market in particular had grown to a huge bubble before Covid came around. The ceo of blackrock and people who are affiliated with the Rothchilds were driving his economic policy. In that regard trump is the same as all the rest… literally the status quo. Bush kicked the can, Obama kicked the can, Trump kicked the can and Biden kicked the can.. this cycle will only continue. Fact is Biden/Harris are currently in charge. Trump is not in charge. It is a binary choice for Status Quo or Not Status Quo. Anything beyond that is a pointless distraction. It does not matter what happened in the past, or how we try and ascribe blame. You are taking the big topic at hand of "how our current system is creating significant problems for young first time home buyers, and the legal/ethical ramifications of possible solutions" and dragging it down into small pointless arguments that deflect from the problem. It does not matter that "person A is X% responsible and they suck." It does not matter "Y necessity is only 10% more expensive when someone somewhere said 100%." These are distractions. We need homes to be as affordable or more to the current generation of homebuyers as they were to past generations. Otherwise the long term consequences are going to be catastrophic. If capitalism needs limits to keep my windows Molotov free, so be it. It used to be that only landowners could vote because they had skin in the game. Smart policy says we should make as many people as possible landowners if we want things to improve. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 4:35:28 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JJ_Jr: This was somewhat feasible in a zero interest rate environment. With the rates that they are today, there is no way in hell they are making a profit. Blackrock is taking out 8% mortgages on the homes they buy.... in cash... |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 5:02:38 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nightstalker: Japanese lost their ass in the 80's on US real estate US Population 1988 - 244M US Land 1988 - 3.5M S/M US Population 2024 - 345M US Land 2024 - 3.5M S/M |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 5:06:23 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lou_Daks: They make good $. But they still had to save for 4-5 years to make it happen because of the market they're in. Most dudes on arf want a brodozer, and to play games on their phones instead of buckling down to do the work. That's normal. Most people are lazy, and want immediate gratification. See: Bell Curve. God Damn Millennials and their $70k Avocado Brodozers. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 5:11:01 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheRealBluedog: All of the morons, edge lords, and just downright stupid motherfuckers who are saying that you are against capitalism if you support disallowing unfair competition don’t understand capitalism, and certainly don’t understand the history of our country. Ever heard of antitrust laws? Ever heard of unfair competition? Ever heard of crony capitalism? Investing in residential real estate is the ultimate price fixing scheme. You invest in something, the price of which is entirely dependent upon supply, and you can actually drive up the value of your investment just by buying it In sufficiently large numbers. This should not be allowed. If a stupid person wants to challenge me on this, you’ll have to do something to get my attention because I don’t have a lot of time to deal with morons today. I mean, all a Blackrock needs to do is lock up enough of a percentage in an area and buy off with campaign finance whatever politician they can find that will block/slow any additional development. Local politicians are cheap, and no one pays attention to the elections. All of a sudden, new permits are impossible, code violations for new construction become egregious, etc. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 5:11:08 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lou_Daks: See my previous link. The TOP 3 corporate owners own 227,000 single family units, COMBINED. In a country of 350 MILLION people. Buncha morans in here. Be honest. Approximately 82 million single-family homes in the United States as of 2021. Roughly 574,000 single-family homes nationwide were owned by institutional investors (entities owning at least 100 homes) as of June 2022, comprising 3.8% of the 15.1 million single-unit rental properties in the US. Additionally, projections suggest that by 2030, institutional investors may control around 7.6 million homes, or more than 40% of all single-family rentals on the market, according to MetLife Investment Management’s 2022 forecast. Those numbers are not insignificant, especially when you consider if those homes are clustered in key markets. |
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 5:17:50 PM EDT
[#16]
Hedge funds, investment houses, retirement funds, etc, including foreign countries, have no business being anywhere near single family homes from an ownership perspective…
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 5:35:23 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lou_Daks: I had several jobs during college, yes. Housing prices ARE different. But so are salaries. My first professional job out of college paid $14,400. PER YEAR. And what year was that? You said you've owned homes for +40 years. So 1980? 1980 Salary : $14k ($60k adjust for inflation) Average House : $55k ($224k adjusted for inflation. 2024 : Average Income (18-24) is $38k Average House - $413k |
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 5:38:56 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gelandewagen: Be honest. Approximately 82 million single-family homes in the United States as of 2021. Roughly 574,000 single-family homes nationwide were owned by institutional investors (entities owning at least 100 homes) as of June 2022, comprising 3.8% of the 15.1 million single-unit rental properties in the US. Additionally, projections suggest that by 2030, institutional investors may control around 7.6 million homes, or more than 40% of all single-family rentals on the market, according to MetLife Investment Management’s 2022 forecast. Those numbers are not insignificant, especially when you consider if those homes are clustered in key markets. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gelandewagen: Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: See my previous link. The TOP 3 corporate owners own 227,000 single family units, COMBINED. In a country of 350 MILLION people. Buncha morans in here. Be honest. Approximately 82 million single-family homes in the United States as of 2021. Roughly 574,000 single-family homes nationwide were owned by institutional investors (entities owning at least 100 homes) as of June 2022, comprising 3.8% of the 15.1 million single-unit rental properties in the US. Additionally, projections suggest that by 2030, institutional investors may control around 7.6 million homes, or more than 40% of all single-family rentals on the market, according to MetLife Investment Management’s 2022 forecast. Those numbers are not insignificant, especially when you consider if those homes are clustered in key markets. Not just clustered in markets, clustered in time. They haven't spent the last 60 years buying homes. They're buying a large percentage of the ones that matter, the ones currently on the market. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 5:40:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Gelandewagen]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Riply21: why are you pretending that is some amazing high cost thing? It's amazing how the geriatric cling to the "brand new iPhone" thing. They grew up paying (adjusted for inflation) about $57/M for a land line + $.40/m for long distance. Yet cry that a "poor" has a "free" iPhone with unlimited data on a 2 year plan for $70/M and somehow that has financially ruined them and is the sole reason why they can't own a home. |
|
|
WY, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 5:44:30 PM EDT
[#20]
I like how if you don't support a bunch of corporations and banks playing with funny money to essentially turn the US into a feudalist society of renters, you somehow don't like capitalism.
Single digit IQ takes in this thread. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 6:13:48 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By VaniB: Do you realize that a lot of foreign investors including commie Chinese are buying homes and land in astronomical amounts? Do you think a free and open market like this leads this and capitalism with no parameters makes a strong USA? NOT!! It's very concerning. https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/china-foreign-land-ownership-explainer |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 6:17:39 PM EDT
[#22]
I'm sure the Chinese have no alternative motive when they buy high rise buildings overlooking us ports and mil bases it's just the free market guys
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 6:59:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Jax_Guns]
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By detharin: That has nothing to do with the topic. You are taking a large problem, specifically how hedge funds purchasing starter homes have detrimental effects on the nation, and attempting to shift it to bashing one guy. Whether Trump will, or will not fix the problem is irrelevant. For voters a change in the status quo "may" fix the problem. You can certainly feel how you wish to feel. However, you concede other things have doubled or more. Groceries being up 10%, 50%, or 100% does not matter to the discussion at hand. As you noted groceries are more expensive even if you order the same thing in the same quantities. If cost increases in food/housing/ necessities are greater than wage increases to the point people can no longer afford what they used to be able to afford, or save to buy what they used to be able to save to buy then people are going to be very pissed off. The actual percentage increases of each item are irrelevant if collectively they add up to being more than an individual can afford. Additionally many prices are going to rise and fall regionally based on a wide variety of factors including transportation costs, and other conditions. When the communist mob burns your house down because they are sick of choosing between ramen noodles or heat for their 10' x 8' tiny hovel while working 80 hours a week to not die you could definitely make your last words "Trump appoints bad people and I do not think groceries went up as much as some people on GD claimed!" At the end of the day we would all likely be better off if their hard work produced the same results as prior generations. Less renters and more homeowners would produce better results for everyone, nationally. Finding ways to do that by balancing the harm to corporations bottom line, and getting young workers into homes to prevent molotovs through windows is the topic at hand. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By detharin: Originally Posted By Duck_Hunt: You said this in the original post I quoted. “The single biggest reason Trump is likely going to win this election is that Biden/Harris shit the bed so hard that even the suburban house wives are noticing how expensive things have become.” I mostly agree with that statement, in particular that trump will win. However I made the points I made to shed some light on how looking at trump as an answer for this is moronic, given his track record and current endorsers. That has nothing to do with the topic. You are taking a large problem, specifically how hedge funds purchasing starter homes have detrimental effects on the nation, and attempting to shift it to bashing one guy. Whether Trump will, or will not fix the problem is irrelevant. For voters a change in the status quo "may" fix the problem. Originally Posted By Duck_Hunt: That same line also mentions how expensive things have become and they have. Look at what happened to vehicle prices for example during 2020 . That being said i’ve seen people here claim that their grocery bills have doubled since 2020. I’m simply pointing out that it’s not the case for us and I believe that’s overblown. Certainly other things have doubled or more… like RE and vehicles.You can certainly feel how you wish to feel. However, you concede other things have doubled or more. Groceries being up 10%, 50%, or 100% does not matter to the discussion at hand. As you noted groceries are more expensive even if you order the same thing in the same quantities. If cost increases in food/housing/ necessities are greater than wage increases to the point people can no longer afford what they used to be able to afford, or save to buy what they used to be able to save to buy then people are going to be very pissed off. The actual percentage increases of each item are irrelevant if collectively they add up to being more than an individual can afford. Additionally many prices are going to rise and fall regionally based on a wide variety of factors including transportation costs, and other conditions. When the communist mob burns your house down because they are sick of choosing between ramen noodles or heat for their 10' x 8' tiny hovel while working 80 hours a week to not die you could definitely make your last words "Trump appoints bad people and I do not think groceries went up as much as some people on GD claimed!" At the end of the day we would all likely be better off if their hard work produced the same results as prior generations. Less renters and more homeowners would produce better results for everyone, nationally. Finding ways to do that by balancing the harm to corporations bottom line, and getting young workers into homes to prevent molotovs through windows is the topic at hand. When the wheels finally come off its not going to be the Blackrock CEO getting his house burned by the mob. He is going to be on a plane to New Zealand. Its going to be some guy owning his own home down the street from the people that can never afford to do so. Making home ownership an attainable goal, and not having to work three jobs to do so, is necessary to have a functioning country where people have some "skin in the game". Also notice I said "attainable", not easy. It should NOT be easy but a person should be able to afford a starter home (1000-1600 sq ft in a ok area) with an average or higher work ethic, intelligence, education and financial knowledge/discipline. Also not having to work three jobs to afford a shack gives people the time to engage in civic activities, church, community and local politics which will in turn make them able to shine light on commies trying to do commie things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 8:30:56 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Riply21: I'm surprised by the number of people bragging about being morally and ethically flexible. I'm not. Why do you think society is where it is? Also consider how many people immediately jumped to bring government into the discussion when the OP never said anything of it - it was posed as an ethical question, not a legal one. When I first learned of people truly not understanding that ethics and morality are separate from legality, that was surprising, especially how prevalent it is. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 8:57:20 PM EDT
[#25]
The whole problem in this country is that the only consideration ever taken is how to make the investor class more money. I have nothing wrong with people making money, I have no ill will against the rich. But to let them dominate the direction of society at virtually every turn (to include single family homes) is a sure way to send us back to feudalism. There are sooo many examples of them manipulating the system to their benefit, I have lost confidence in "the markets" to resolve any serious problem. Pumping and dumping stock, the housing bubble, Gamestop, and just about every piece of legislation that is designed to their benefit.
Does that mean the Government has to do it? I would prefer for it not to but, what is the alternative? The alternative is Dystopia. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:19:20 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ThreadKiller: The whole problem in this country is that the only consideration ever taken is how to make the investor class more money. I have nothing wrong with people making money, I have no ill will against the rich. But to let them dominate the direction of society at virtually every turn (to include single family homes) is a sure way to send us back to feudalism. There are sooo many examples of them manipulating the system to their benefit, I have lost confidence in "the markets" to resolve any serious problem. Pumping and dumping stock, the housing bubble, Gamestop, and just about every piece of legislation that is designed to their benefit. Does that mean the Government has to do it? I would prefer for it not to but, what is the alternative? The alternative is Dystopia. I’m not quite following what you are saying here. The entire Democratic platform is pandering to people who are net receivers from the government. How is that letting the rich dominate the direction of the economy? Also the majority of government legislation goes to help people with less. Now do corporations and high net people take advantage of this well of course yes but numbers wise those affected are the poor or people who don’t pay in. Also GameStop was a case of everyday investors sticking it to hedge funds so it would be the opposite of what you are saying. |
|
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:23:29 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Paul: Why would government want to restrict who can buy a home in a free country except to create housing crisis and higher costs?  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:25:09 PM EDT
[#28]
op your title is clickbait
"Is it ethicaly wrong for hedge funds to buy starter homes by the 1000's and rent them back to us" if they are buying your house then you made this happen. if not, then it is not being rented "back" to you. in reality, hedge funds bought starter homes from Americans all too happy to sell them and then rented them to different people all too happy to rent them. who was harmed? |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:31:20 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryOriginally Posted By guyknight: Originally Posted By Paul: Why would government want to restrict who can buy a home in a free country except to create housing crisis and higher costs? /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/this-gif-793.gif |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:40:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: HDSledge]
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: It’s not ethically wrong, but I don’t support it. I generally don’t like more regulation. But in this case, I’d go with Charlie Kirk. He’s said something like if a firm has more than an $X amount in assets under management, they cannot be in the business of buying and renting out single family homes. I've resisted selling any of my property since the big push began, with mailouts and phone calls daily from small time operators who work for big corporations like Blackstone. I only own a few but it is constant: "Would you be interested in selling your house at so and so address?" I've had to say no thanks hundreds of times. Now I don't even answer the phone anymore. They are buying up as much as they can. Nefarious. Don't like it. Feels like something shady is going on, ratholing, stockpiling, cornering the rental market. Are they just taking advantage of the fact that a lot of people will be renting forever and have no chance of buying a house now? Or do they have some connections in our gov telling them that rents will be subsidized by the taxpayer soon? 10 million? Sounds about right for all the illegals to have a place to stay on Uncle Sam's dime. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:47:44 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bionicmonkey: op your title is clickbait "Is it ethicaly wrong for hedge funds to buy starter homes by the 1000's and rent them back to us" if they are buying your house then you made this happen. if not, then it is not being rented "back" to you. in reality, hedge funds bought starter homes from Americans all too happy to sell them and then rented them to different people all too happy to rent them. who was harmed? Isn’t the red text an assumption? Are 100% of renters happy to rent or is there a % that is stuck renting because of a multitude of reasons. PS This thread is fun to read BTW. PPS From the dank meme thread: 
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:54:48 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JaredGrey: Any corporation that owns more than 5 single family homes and isn’t headquartered in the same city as those homes should be taxed so heavily that their taxes construct an equivalent number of new single family homes per year. Voting for Kamala I see. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 11:00:12 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By perfectsilence: So true I sold 8 houses to Chinese nationals, some locals put in bids on all of them but they couldn’t compete. The homes are all sitting empty now Got my money so zfg /s Isn’t there something in the contract stating that the home has to be occupied in a certain amount of time. I wouldn’t be opposed to squatters moving into homes that are bought by foreign entitities or hedge funds… |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 11:04:02 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By perfectsilence: So true I sold 8 houses to Chinese nationals, some locals put in bids on all of them but they couldn’t compete. The homes are all sitting empty now Got my money so zfg /s Isn’t there something in the contract stating that the home has to be occupied in a certain amount of time. I wouldn’t be opposed to squatters moving into homes that are bought by foreign entitities or hedge funds… |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/28/2024 1:22:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Master_Blaster]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Elijah1: Why would you limit the free markets? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Elijah1: Why would you limit the free markets? Because they're trying to quash freedom. Do you think what current tech billionaires are doing currently is supporting or oppressing freedom? Would you think it a good thing if any of them bought & gained monopoly control of the internet in its entirety? The constitution - & by extension, freedom - aren't supposed to be suicide pacts. Originally Posted By Paul: Why would government want to restrict who can buy a home in a free country except to create housing crisis and higher costs? So it's bad if big government does it, but "good" if big corporate hedge funds do it? How do the big hedge funds monopolization of the housing supply help the market? Do you think their motivations are noble or something? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2024 1:29:57 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MannyRibera: It costs a lot for a business to remove chemicals. It would be far cheaper to just dump them into creeks and rivers, and they once did. Does it sound communist telling a business they can’t dump chemicals into creeks and rivers? The poster above was talking about a world we want to live in. We no longer have a government that actually cares for its people. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MannyRibera: Originally Posted By wyomingnick: Originally Posted By GlutealCleft: People need to stop thinking "muh ehtics" and start thinking "What kind of world do I want to live in?" If you want single-family housing to be exorbitantly expensive and burdensome on 99% of America for the benefit of a few billionaires, then sure, let them be used as investment tools by big corps and hedge funds. They'll manipulate the housing market the way they manipulate the stock market and retail prices. On the other hand, if you want a world where housing is maybe somewhat affordable, then you need to keep the billionaire's hands off of them. You wouldn't be depriving those poor billionaires from making their money, they still have a zillion other avenues of investment. But for once, maybe put the needs of the regular people above the "needs" of the richest. How do you do that? Restrict rich people from owning too many homes? Sounds pretty communist. I'd rather see free market solutions mitigate the problem. There's likely a lot of things that could be fixed it would mitigate the problem even if it didn't eliminate it completely. Make it easier for people to build more homes. Simplify and reduce unnecessary regulation in the building codes. No special rules for the rich, which probably are benefiting them making it easier for them to do this. That is the unethical thing that they don't always play by the same rules. But if they have the money I see no reasonable way to stop them from buying property that is for sale on the market. It costs a lot for a business to remove chemicals. It would be far cheaper to just dump them into creeks and rivers, and they once did. Does it sound communist telling a business they can’t dump chemicals into creeks and rivers? The poster above was talking about a world we want to live in. We no longer have a government that actually cares for its people. Quite different. They are polluting public waters and land with dumping. They've no right to do that. It's hard to tell them they can't buy a house and rent it just because it drives up the cost without sounding communist. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2024 1:33:57 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nomad07:  ya, getting free money from the fed, getting bailed out and bonuses instead of going bust like they ALL should have many times over, but fucking given money from the tax slave instead....somehow this is "free market" Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nomad07: Originally Posted By Elijah1: Why would you limit the free markets? ya, getting free money from the fed, getting bailed out and bonuses instead of going bust like they ALL should have many times over, but fucking given money from the tax slave instead....somehow this is "free market" None of that is the free market. The rich shouldn't get any special privileges or tax breaks, likewise no extra restrictions such as not buying houses. But definitely no bailouts, or special exceptions. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/28/2024 1:35:02 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By VectorX: I would say it isn't really ethically wrong for the company, but it is something that is probably bad for society overall, and therefore the government should probably enact laws to avoid that situation. Having a large middle class owning homes is very good for the health of the country. Having a large serf-class of renters might be good for some corporations, but not for the country as a whole. Correct. And they gobbled up supply in that market with money handed to them by the fed - underwritten by the tax payers. It's just theft by another name. No big. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2024 2:06:51 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By USMCknightraider: I’m not quite following what you are saying here. The entire Democratic platform is pandering to people who are net receivers from the government. How is that letting the rich dominate the direction of the economy? Also the majority of government legislation goes to help people with less. Now do corporations and high net people take advantage of this well of course yes but numbers wise those affected are the poor or people who don’t pay in. Also GameStop was a case of everyday investors sticking it to hedge funds so it would be the opposite of what you are saying. It's not about increasing government benefits for the Democratic constituency. It's about not destroying the primary wealth building asset for the Average American by hedge funds and foreign investors manipulating the market with speculation. They would LOVE to turn us all into renters so they can own everything, don't kid yourself on that. Capitalism is great, but Crony Capitalism is a bane to the Average American and should be fought. As for Gamestop, I will clarify that I was referring to the halting of trading as demanded by the Hedge Funds to slow their losses. If it wasn't their money at stake, trading would have never been halted. But no, they took enormous risk by shorting the Gamestop stock and manipulate the trading apps to do their bidding. That is, individual trading was halted but the Hedge Funds could still make trades. No corruption there... |
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 8/28/2024 7:31:10 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Duck_Hunt: The rub here is that trump isn’t a change in the status quo. I didn’t realize pointing out facts was bashing. I’m sorry you took it that way. You were the one who brought him up and it has everything to do with the topic at hand. Yes the economy is fucked for multiple reasons. Every administration in the last 100+ years is culpable in that. It appears you are mis representing or not understanding my point. The fact of the matter is that the costs of goods and real estate were going up under trump. The RE market in particular had grown to a huge bubble before Covid came around. The ceo of blackrock and people who are affiliated with the Rothchilds were driving his economic policy. In that regard trump is the same as all the rest… literally the status quo. Bush kicked the can, Obama kicked the can, Trump kicked the can and Biden kicked the can.. this cycle will only continue. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Duck_Hunt: Originally Posted By detharin: Originally Posted By Duck_Hunt: You said this in the original post I quoted. “The single biggest reason Trump is likely going to win this election is that Biden/Harris shit the bed so hard that even the suburban house wives are noticing how expensive things have become.” I mostly agree with that statement, in particular that trump will win. However I made the points I made to shed some light on how looking at trump as an answer for this is moronic, given his track record and current endorsers. That has nothing to do with the topic. You are taking a large problem, specifically how hedge funds purchasing starter homes have detrimental effects on the nation, and attempting to shift it to bashing one guy. Whether Trump will, or will not fix the problem is irrelevant. For voters a change in the status quo "may" fix the problem. Originally Posted By Duck_Hunt: That same line also mentions how expensive things have become and they have. Look at what happened to vehicle prices for example during 2020 . That being said i’ve seen people here claim that their grocery bills have doubled since 2020. I’m simply pointing out that it’s not the case for us and I believe that’s overblown. Certainly other things have doubled or more… like RE and vehicles.You can certainly feel how you wish to feel. However, you concede other things have doubled or more. Groceries being up 10%, 50%, or 100% does not matter to the discussion at hand. As you noted groceries are more expensive even if you order the same thing in the same quantities. If cost increases in food/housing/ necessities are greater than wage increases to the point people can no longer afford what they used to be able to afford, or save to buy what they used to be able to save to buy then people are going to be very pissed off. The actual percentage increases of each item are irrelevant if collectively they add up to being more than an individual can afford. Additionally many prices are going to rise and fall regionally based on a wide variety of factors including transportation costs, and other conditions. When the communist mob burns your house down because they are sick of choosing between ramen noodles or heat for their 10' x 8' tiny hovel while working 80 hours a week to not die you could definitely make your last words "Trump appoints bad people and I do not think groceries went up as much as some people on GD claimed!" At the end of the day we would all likely be better off if their hard work produced the same results as prior generations. Less renters and more homeowners would produce better results for everyone, nationally. Finding ways to do that by balancing the harm to corporations bottom line, and getting young workers into homes to prevent molotovs through windows is the topic at hand. The rub here is that trump isn’t a change in the status quo. I didn’t realize pointing out facts was bashing. I’m sorry you took it that way. You were the one who brought him up and it has everything to do with the topic at hand. Yes the economy is fucked for multiple reasons. Every administration in the last 100+ years is culpable in that. It appears you are mis representing or not understanding my point. The fact of the matter is that the costs of goods and real estate were going up under trump. The RE market in particular had grown to a huge bubble before Covid came around. The ceo of blackrock and people who are affiliated with the Rothchilds were driving his economic policy. In that regard trump is the same as all the rest… literally the status quo. Bush kicked the can, Obama kicked the can, Trump kicked the can and Biden kicked the can.. this cycle will only continue. Correct, IMO, and here we are again, having to choose between the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
MD, USA
|
Posted: 8/28/2024 11:58:26 AM EDT
[#41]
My statement isn't about big high rises
My statement isn't about 200 init apartment complexes... My statement is a direct response to hedge funds buying up starter homes, the lowest barrier to entry as a homeowner. Starter homes are in short supply. And builders refuse to build them due to consumer tastes...everyone wants a mc mansion It is my belief that neighborhoods and first time buyers will suffer the most, and the ripple effects aren't good for anyone. I'm a landlord myself. 8 do turn a profit, but I show up I'm person when my tenants have an issue. And I make half of my own repairs.... In other words I'm not rich, but my people can shake my hand and call my phone when they need me. Try getting that from blackrock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2024 11:58:41 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By detharin: Fact is Biden/Harris are currently in charge. Trump is not in charge. It is a binary choice for Status Quo or Not Status Quo. Anything beyond that is a pointless distraction. It does not matter what happened in the past, or how we try and ascribe blame. You are taking the big topic at hand of "how our current system is creating significant problems for young first time home buyers, and the legal/ethical ramifications of possible solutions" and dragging it down into small pointless arguments that deflect from the problem. It does not matter that "person A is X% responsible and they suck." It does not matter "Y necessity is only 10% more expensive when someone somewhere said 100%." These are distractions. We need homes to be as affordable or more to the current generation of homebuyers as they were to past generations. Otherwise the long term consequences are going to be catastrophic. If capitalism needs limits to keep my windows Molotov free, so be it. It used to be that only landowners could vote because they had skin in the game. Smart policy says we should make as many people as possible landowners if we want things to improve. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By detharin: Originally Posted By Duck_Hunt: The rub here is that trump isn’t a change in the status quo. I didn’t realize pointing out facts was bashing. I’m sorry you took it that way. You were the one who brought him up and it has everything to do with the topic at hand. Yes the economy is fucked for multiple reasons. Every administration in the last 100+ years is culpable in that. It appears you are mis representing or not understanding what my point. The fact of the matter is that the costs of goods and real estate were going up under trump. The RE market in particular had grown to a huge bubble before Covid came around. The ceo of blackrock and people who are affiliated with the Rothchilds were driving his economic policy. In that regard trump is the same as all the rest… literally the status quo. Bush kicked the can, Obama kicked the can, Trump kicked the can and Biden kicked the can.. this cycle will only continue. Fact is Biden/Harris are currently in charge. Trump is not in charge. It is a binary choice for Status Quo or Not Status Quo. Anything beyond that is a pointless distraction. It does not matter what happened in the past, or how we try and ascribe blame. You are taking the big topic at hand of "how our current system is creating significant problems for young first time home buyers, and the legal/ethical ramifications of possible solutions" and dragging it down into small pointless arguments that deflect from the problem. It does not matter that "person A is X% responsible and they suck." It does not matter "Y necessity is only 10% more expensive when someone somewhere said 100%." These are distractions. We need homes to be as affordable or more to the current generation of homebuyers as they were to past generations. Otherwise the long term consequences are going to be catastrophic. If capitalism needs limits to keep my windows Molotov free, so be it. It used to be that only landowners could vote because they had skin in the game. Smart policy says we should make as many people as possible landowners if we want things to improve. The issue is that home prices were inflating exponentially year over year from 2012-2022+-. Trump and the policies driven by blackrock and Blackstone poured jet fuel on that fire. Yes fjb kicked the can. The point is that it’s peak stupidity to look at trump as an answer for this. We are fucked either way. I agree with your second paragraph. It’s also important to note that the ship has left the harbor. It’s not coming back. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2024 12:03:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Duck_Hunt]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By diesel1: Correct, IMO, and here we are again, having to choose between the lesser of two evils. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By diesel1: Originally Posted By Duck_Hunt: Originally Posted By detharin: Originally Posted By Duck_Hunt: You said this in the original post I quoted. “The single biggest reason Trump is likely going to win this election is that Biden/Harris shit the bed so hard that even the suburban house wives are noticing how expensive things have become.” I mostly agree with that statement, in particular that trump will win. However I made the points I made to shed some light on how looking at trump as an answer for this is moronic, given his track record and current endorsers. That has nothing to do with the topic. You are taking a large problem, specifically how hedge funds purchasing starter homes have detrimental effects on the nation, and attempting to shift it to bashing one guy. Whether Trump will, or will not fix the problem is irrelevant. For voters a change in the status quo "may" fix the problem. Originally Posted By Duck_Hunt: That same line also mentions how expensive things have become and they have. Look at what happened to vehicle prices for example during 2020 . That being said i’ve seen people here claim that their grocery bills have doubled since 2020. I’m simply pointing out that it’s not the case for us and I believe that’s overblown. Certainly other things have doubled or more… like RE and vehicles.You can certainly feel how you wish to feel. However, you concede other things have doubled or more. Groceries being up 10%, 50%, or 100% does not matter to the discussion at hand. As you noted groceries are more expensive even if you order the same thing in the same quantities. If cost increases in food/housing/ necessities are greater than wage increases to the point people can no longer afford what they used to be able to afford, or save to buy what they used to be able to save to buy then people are going to be very pissed off. The actual percentage increases of each item are irrelevant if collectively they add up to being more than an individual can afford. Additionally many prices are going to rise and fall regionally based on a wide variety of factors including transportation costs, and other conditions. When the communist mob burns your house down because they are sick of choosing between ramen noodles or heat for their 10' x 8' tiny hovel while working 80 hours a week to not die you could definitely make your last words "Trump appoints bad people and I do not think groceries went up as much as some people on GD claimed!" At the end of the day we would all likely be better off if their hard work produced the same results as prior generations. Less renters and more homeowners would produce better results for everyone, nationally. Finding ways to do that by balancing the harm to corporations bottom line, and getting young workers into homes to prevent molotovs through windows is the topic at hand. The rub here is that trump isn’t a change in the status quo. I didn’t realize pointing out facts was bashing. I’m sorry you took it that way. You were the one who brought him up and it has everything to do with the topic at hand. Yes the economy is fucked for multiple reasons. Every administration in the last 100+ years is culpable in that. It appears you are mis representing or not understanding my point. The fact of the matter is that the costs of goods and real estate were going up under trump. The RE market in particular had grown to a huge bubble before Covid came around. The ceo of blackrock and people who are affiliated with the Rothchilds were driving his economic policy. In that regard trump is the same as all the rest… literally the status quo. Bush kicked the can, Obama kicked the can, Trump kicked the can and Biden kicked the can.. this cycle will only continue. Correct, IMO, and here we are again, having to choose between the lesser of two evils. Yep. Rinse and repeat. Most important election ever!! This country is finished if the other team wins!!…. Regurgitated for decades… and the slide continues. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/28/2024 12:18:39 PM EDT
[#44]
"Muh Free Market Capitalism" - Far from it in today's real estate market.
Tons of special programs. Government paid rent (section 8). Big investors know the stock market is valued in funny money so they are turning to real estate. They are trying to commoditize real estate like a publicly traded security. Good luck. Government bailout here we come. |
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 8/28/2024 12:28:06 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wyomingnick: Quite different. They are polluting public waters and land with dumping. They've no right to do that. It's hard to tell them they can't buy a house and rent it just because it drives up the cost without sounding communist. It's also hard to say you can't build a house under 1800 square feet or on a lot smaller than a half acre without sounding communist, but in much of the country they do. In fact much of Arfcom adamantly defends highly restrictive zoning and building codes. |
|
|
MD, USA
|
Posted: 8/28/2024 12:31:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: BMGisbetter]
[#46]
It isn't a free market system....that's the part that people overlook....
Section 8 housing allowances Housing Vouchers Builders can't make profit on starter homes, so the build mc mansions County ordinances in my area won't allow new homes under 2000sqft....even townhomes here are 3 stories tall It's not a free market if they won't let you build starter homes period. It's not a free market if the local govt won't let you build them, and not a free market if the government subsidies rents and mortgages either... The whole system is rigged and there is very little free market left. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2024 12:40:37 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Elijah1: Why would you limit the free markets? There is no free market and there never has been since the Bronze age. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2024 1:02:12 PM EDT
[#48]
Oh my goodness. Institutional buyers of all sorts own more than 2.5% of the market!!!!
Please government me harder daddy.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2024 1:02:31 PM EDT
[#49]
BofA STILL recovering from 2008 RE dive.
|
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 8/28/2024 1:25:57 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Elijah1: Why would you limit the free markets? You do not understand how money creation/flow affects "markets". This is not a free market. When money is being devalued those with first access to cash (closer to the fed money hose) get the money first and buy assets, the price of which, has not yet responded to the new money. Those who work for money and are much further away from the money hose then must buy the asset with devalued earnings. If there were "free markets" you would be correct; but there are not in an over-financialized renttier economy with insiders getting access to fresh cash emitted from the .gov. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
