User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 1:29:03 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 1:34:45 AM EDT
[#2]
The problem is that when hedge funds and foreign investors start buying single family homes as an investment strategy, it drives up demand to the point where it is impossible for the average American that wants to be a "homeowner" and compete with them. How does an average income family even with good credit and a downpayment compete with an inflated cash offer? And combined with artificially low interests you create another bubble in the US housing market, and at the same time making becoming a homeowner impossible for many. And when the bubble does pop, which it will, all the people advocating for a "free market" just so they can benefit from their increased equity in their home will be out of luck. I am a homeowner, and I will benefit from this as my house has nearly doubled in value since I bought it. But I worry that my kids will never be able to own a home unless they inherit it. So much for the American Dream.
First off, no foreign investors should ever be able to purchase infrastructure in the US, period. I don't give a shit, it is a National Security issue and I would include single family homes in that category. Next, hedge funds should be prohibited from investing in single family homes, or at least taxed at a much higher rate to discourage it. They could invest in any other type of real estate they want, why do we need them mucking up an already fucked up housing market that so many millions depend on? Is it communism to say this? No. But it is ant-banker and anti-financer class. Which is fine because these people have no idea what they are doing and are so short sighted they will do anything to make a profit no matter how much it hurts down the road. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 1:56:43 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Elijah1: Why would you limit the free markets? It's cute you think we have "free markets." Once you come to terms with the fact that we don't have free markets, you'll better understand OP's question. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 2:01:06 AM EDT
[#4]
Random, but the term “hedge fund” is as misused as “assault weapon”.
People just use it to mean investment fund because it sounds scarier. |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 2:37:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Millennial]
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TontoGoldstein: The market will respond to shortages. It would if it were free There’s so much red tape and overhead in building a new home that the barrier to entry before you ever break ground or lay a brick creates a significant market inefficiency. That’s why the only new construction you see is 2000SF 4BR/4BT HOA McMansions. The overhead inefficiency of the system makes it cost prohibitive to just go build a relatively inexpensive 1300-1500SF 2BR/1.5BT starter homes anymore. The closest you get to small new housing are the condo style communities, and with those you’re still saddled extra deep in HOA bullshit neighbors… Those always seem more like theyre for people downsizing in retirement, and looking for somewhere they can ride golf carts around most of the places. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 3:03:43 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ThreadKiller: The problem is that when hedge funds and foreign investors start buying single family homes as an investment strategy, it drives up demand to the point where it is impossible for the average American that wants to be a "homeowner" and compete with them. How does an average income family even with good credit and a downpayment compete with an inflated cash offer? And combined with artificially low interests you create another bubble in the US housing market, and at the same time making becoming a homeowner impossible for many. And when the bubble does pop, which it will, all the people advocating for a "free market" just so they can benefit from their increased equity in their home will be out of luck. I am a homeowner, and I will benefit from this as my house has nearly doubled in value since I bought it. But I worry that my kids will never be able to own a home unless they inherit it. So much for the American Dream. First off, no foreign investors should ever be able to purchase infrastructure in the US, period. I don't give a shit, it is a National Security issue and I would include single family homes in that category. Next, hedge funds should be prohibited from investing in single family homes, or at least taxed at a much higher rate to discourage it. They could invest in any other type of real estate they want, why do we need them mucking up an already fucked up housing market that so many millions depend on? Is it communism to say this? No. But it is ant-banker and anti-financer class. Which is fine because these people have no idea what they are doing and are so short sighted they will do anything to make a profit no matter how much it hurts down the road. I agree with you with the foreign entities buying them, shouldn't be allowed it is a national security and national sovereignty issue. I can't see justification for denying hedge funds. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 3:33:35 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wyomingnick: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. You more or less summed up why this mythical "free market" doesn't exist, the rich don't play by the same rules, and they never will because they're the ones that can buy off the government. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 4:55:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: OregonShooter]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Millennial: It would if it were free There’s so much red tape and overhead in building a new home that the barrier to entry before you ever break ground or lay a brick creates a significant market inefficiency. That’s why the only new construction you see is 2000SF 4BR/4BT HOA McMansions. The overhead inefficiency of the system makes it cost prohibitive to just go build a relatively inexpensive 1300-1500SF 2BR/1.5BT starter homes anymore. The closest you get to small new housing are the condo style communities, and with those you’re still saddled extra deep in HOA bullshit neighbors… Those always seem more like theyre for people downsizing in retirement, and looking for somewhere they can ride golf carts around most of the places. In a new subdivision near me you can buy a new construction 1150 sq/ft 3bd/1.5ba home with single car garage on a 5000 sq/ft lot for $450k. Or on the lot next to it you can buy a 2650 sq/ft 4/3 with a 2 car garage for $600k.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 5:55:49 AM EDT
[#9]
Country living with no zoning laws, build what you want, or whine.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 6:00:02 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By OregonShooter: In a free market the houses in that expensive area would be leveled and replaced with a multistory building that can fit more units per square foot of land. That cannot happen due to zoning that excludes high density housing.... Not necessarily. Not all housing demand is equivalent - those interested in single family dwellings may not be interested in high density housing. They may choose to shop a different, less desirable area rather than settle for an apartment in their ideal/preferred area. |
|
|
|
AR, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 6:00:34 AM EDT
[#11]
The crazy part is how many people believe housing is a free market. It is not.
Zoning laws limited single family residential buildings massively along with large multi-family units. Boomers don’t want to live next to an apartment building so they allowed government regulation and controls on the housing market. Now they want to buy up all the single family housing and rent it out for “passive” income. It should be illegal to own more than one home. That or remove any and all government regulation aka zoning laws. I’m for the latter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 6:00:44 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By OregonShooter: In a new subdivision near me you can buy a new construction 1150 sq/ft 3bd/1.5ba home with single car garage on a 5000 sq/ft lot for $450k. Or on the lot next to it you can buy a 2650 sq/ft 4/3 with a 2 car garage for $600k.... When grandpa moved the family to Florida he bought a new construction 1100sqf 3/2 home for 23k. |
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 6:07:40 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wyomingnick: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 6:19:36 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By switchtanks: “ you will own nothing and be happy” - Klaus Schwab Did you really think they were kidding? Using Capitalism against Capitalism. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 6:43:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: styles]
[#15]
Down here they are like flop/boarding houses. You need to pass a background and credit check for an apartment. So, they rent them by the room to those that cannot.
Is it ethically wrong? No. |
|
|
|
KS, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 8:14:30 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Riply21: What if the government and corporations are one in the same and working together against American interests? What if say the us government was paying a company to spy on Americans because its legal if the company does it and then buying the data from the company. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Riply21: Originally Posted By 1Andy2: I can't think of a better way to guarantee a shit future for our inheritors than handing over yet more power to government to make the economy "ethical." Again, more government control is not going to fix that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 8:24:57 AM EDT
[#17]
Please please please govern me harder daddy, give me more government, let them control the size of my house, let them control the cost of my house, and my food too, please more government.
How about you just fuck no. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 8:31:24 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fssf158: Again, more government control is not going to fix that. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fssf158: Originally Posted By Riply21: Originally Posted By 1Andy2: I can't think of a better way to guarantee a shit future for our inheritors than handing over yet more power to government to make the economy "ethical." Again, more government control is not going to fix that. Muh chrony capitalism. People don’t think letting Blackrock and Blackstone drive US economic policy be like it is but it do. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 8:35:19 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Elijah1: Why would you limit the free markets? Because at some point the george soros of the world have no practical limits on what the can do with their wealth. I love the idea of completely free markets, but im a realist. Its like communism and unions-- great sounding ideas until you involve people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 8:36:22 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Snozberry: Because at some point the george soros of the world have no practical limits on what the can do with their wealth. I love the idea of completely free markets, but im a realist. Its like communism and unions-- great sounding ideas until you involve people. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Snozberry: Originally Posted By Elijah1: Why would you limit the free markets? Because at some point the george soros of the world have no practical limits on what the can do with their wealth. I love the idea of completely free markets, but im a realist. Its like communism and unions-- great sounding ideas until you involve people. Lulz. That ship sailed a long fucking time ago. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:00:47 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Some_Beach: Capitalism is scary GD doesn't know the difference between capitalism and anarchism. A significant portion of GD really does want anarchism, the absence of authority & regulation. Capitalism requires responsible regulation to be effective, which is why the Framers created the commerce clause to facilitate effective markets. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:02:43 AM EDT
[#22]
The interesting insight brought about by this thread is that many people seem to think that the only morally wrong action in a free market economy is to restrict the choices that can be made in that economy. Otherwise there is apparently no such thing as an ethical problem.
People like to throw around the Adams quote about the Constitution being meant for a moral and religious people, and yet there is very little expectation that anyone behave ethically of their own accord. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:02:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Duck_Hunt]
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: GD doesn't know the difference between capitalism and anarchism. A significant portion of GD really does want anarchism, the absence of authority & regulation. Capitalism requires responsible regulation to be effective, which is why the Framers created the commerce clause to facilitate effective markets. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By Some_Beach: Capitalism is scary GD doesn't know the difference between capitalism and anarchism. A significant portion of GD really does want anarchism, the absence of authority & regulation. Capitalism requires responsible regulation to be effective, which is why the Framers created the commerce clause to facilitate effective markets. Everyone should watch this before they wail about free markets & capitalism. https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:08:20 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fssf158: Again, more government control is not going to fix that. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fssf158: Originally Posted By Riply21: Originally Posted By 1Andy2: I can't think of a better way to guarantee a shit future for our inheritors than handing over yet more power to government to make the economy "ethical." Again, more government control is not going to fix that. Globalist corps have no problem using the weight of government to limit you and regulate housing to benefit their business model. You want to stop globalists who are pushing DEI into every facet of society? Time to legally limit the corporations that are working hard to legally limit you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:14:02 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JAD762: Globalist corps have no problem using the weight of government to limit you and regulate housing to benefit their business model. You want to stop globalists who are pushing DEI into every facet of society? Time to legally limit the corporations that are working hard to legally limit you. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JAD762: Originally Posted By fssf158: Originally Posted By Riply21: Originally Posted By 1Andy2: I can't think of a better way to guarantee a shit future for our inheritors than handing over yet more power to government to make the economy "ethical." Again, more government control is not going to fix that. Globalist corps have no problem using the weight of government to limit you and regulate housing to benefit their business model. You want to stop globalists who are pushing DEI into every facet of society? Time to legally limit the corporations that are working hard to legally limit you. Ayup. The rub here is that those corporations & elite, wholly run the US government. They will not allow laws or regulations to be passed that go against their interests. Short of a large uprising, that will never happen. As it currently stands 98% of the American electorate is voting for more of the same. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:20:39 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By trails-end: Using Capitalism against Capitalism. It’s is its own worst enemy. When capitalism is mixed with corporate greed it opens the door to communism. The people at the top don’t really care because they’ll remain the people at the top no matter what system is put in place. Both are tools used to control the populace. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:24:28 AM EDT
[#27]
Not sure about ethics, but it certainly sucks for my neighborhood. I'm outside Charlotte and they're snatching up everything here. It's resulted in a general decline in the quality of our neighborhood IMO.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:27:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: DayandNight1701]
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By USMCknightraider: Also there are still many cheap places for starter homes. Owning a home is still incredibly attainable in the US Yes and no. In ANY metro city, basic "starter homes"..I'm talking built in the 70's, never been updated, needing a ton of work, in a shit neighborhood, START around $400k. From that you can deduce what a family would need for income to be able to afford that home. It's around $150-200k a year. How many young families do you know make that? Very few. Let's talk about the "affordable" starter homes, say $100-$150k. Those are in po-dunk towns 100 miles from anywhere, and most people living in those small towns couldn't afford to buy those houses either, because there's little employment. This isn't a disconnect between boomers and gen z, it's a disconnect between anyone that purchased their first home BEFORE 2020 vs today. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:28:01 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Duck_Hunt: Ayup. The rub here is that those corporations & elite, wholly run the US government. They will not allow laws or regulations to be passed that go against their interests. Short of a large uprising, that will never happen. As it currently stands 98% of the American electorate is voting for more of the same. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Duck_Hunt: Originally Posted By JAD762: Originally Posted By fssf158: Originally Posted By Riply21: Originally Posted By 1Andy2: I can't think of a better way to guarantee a shit future for our inheritors than handing over yet more power to government to make the economy "ethical." Again, more government control is not going to fix that. Globalist corps have no problem using the weight of government to limit you and regulate housing to benefit their business model. You want to stop globalists who are pushing DEI into every facet of society? Time to legally limit the corporations that are working hard to legally limit you. Ayup. The rub here is that those corporations & elite, wholly run the US government. They will not allow laws or regulations to be passed that go against their interests. Short of a large uprising, that will never happen. As it currently stands 98% of the American electorate is voting for more of the same. Yep. These same real estate investment corps are the ones lobbying government to make building and zoning codes stricter so that it’s harder and more expensive for individuals and smaller companies to build new housing, thus maintaining a housing scarcity and letting their properties grow in value. But when people run into those prohibitive laws they blame the government, not the corporations that lobbied for it. Blackrock and associated investment firms are applying the DeBeers strategy for the diamond market to housing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:35:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Duck_Hunt]
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DayandNight1701: Yes and no. In ANY metro city, basic "starter homes"..I'm talking built in the 70's, never been updated, needing a ton of work, START around $400k. From that you can deduce what a family would need for income to be able to afford that home. It's around $150-200k a year. How many young families do you know make that? Very few. Let's talk about the "affordable" starter homes, say $100-$150k. Those are in po-dunk towns 100 miles from anywhere, and most people living in those small towns couldn't afford to buy those houses either, because there's little employment. This isn't a disconnect between boomers and gen z, it's a disconnect between anyone that purchased their first home BEFORE 2020 vs today. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DayandNight1701: Originally Posted By USMCknightraider: Also there are still many cheap places for starter homes. Owning a home is still incredibly attainable in the US Yes and no. In ANY metro city, basic "starter homes"..I'm talking built in the 70's, never been updated, needing a ton of work, START around $400k. From that you can deduce what a family would need for income to be able to afford that home. It's around $150-200k a year. How many young families do you know make that? Very few. Let's talk about the "affordable" starter homes, say $100-$150k. Those are in po-dunk towns 100 miles from anywhere, and most people living in those small towns couldn't afford to buy those houses either, because there's little employment. This isn't a disconnect between boomers and gen z, it's a disconnect between anyone that purchased their first home BEFORE 2020 vs today. Mostly agree. Although prices were increasing several years prior to 2020. Hell I bought a house in 2012, didn’t make any improvements or updates to it and made 100k when I sold it in 2018. All this was due to rate manipulation and mostly the Fed purchasing trillions in MBS. The only reason why the economy ‘looked good’ from 2012+- to 2020 was because of the feds manipulating the housing market. RE values went up and millions upon millions of people were cashing out with refis and helocs, which in turn pumped the economy with trillions of inflationary dollars. Many of those same people and corps that were cashing out, rolled that equity into other properties, which also In turn further inflated prices and caused a shortage. We are paying the piper now with housing costs & inflation. |
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:36:10 AM EDT
[#31]
Many here consider “capitalism” as the ultimate unquestionable true and correct path for humanity. Never considering that left to run the full course that it too has flaws.
Look no further than the game “Monopoly”. As a model of capitalism it cuts to the final scene pretty quickly. Only one winner owning everything. I think it is the greatest system yet devised, in its middle phases. Where those with ambition grow and those with a little less become employees. But late stage capitalism turns ugly, with schemes like planned obsolescence, takeover of government, oligarchy. No vote for communism here, or bigger government. But what we currently have aint perfect either. And I am not sure its working for the majority anymore. With a perfect system apparently not yet figured out, we get cycles. Violent upheaval being next on the horizon. Remember getting mad and folding up the monopoly board when you realized you were the loser? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:40:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: JAD762]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By shaneus: Many here consider “capitalism” as the ultimate unquestionable true and correct path for humanity. Never considering that left to run the full course that it too has flaws. Look no further than the game “Monopoly”. As a model of capitalism it cuts to the final scene pretty quickly. Only one winner owning everything. I think it is the greatest system yet devised, in its middle phases. Where those with ambition grow and those with a little less become employees. But late stage capitalism turns ugly, with schemes like planned obsolescence, takeover of government, oligarchy. No vote for communism here, or bigger government. But what we currently have aint perfect either. And I am not sure its working for the majority anymore. With a perfect system apparently not yet figured out, we get cycles. Violent upheaval being next on the horizon. Remember getting mad and folding up the monopoly board when you realized you were the loser? Free market capitalism is the best economic system for societal flourishing. The problem with arflandia is that many people think that market manipulation is perfectly fine as long as it comes from a corporate owned politician. ETA- But yeah, despite all of arflandias bluster about CW2, investment corps housing policies are what may kick off real violence. Plato wasn’t wrong when he said that most revolutions are sparked when wealth is held by a few and most see no way of improving themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:46:12 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JAD762: Free market capitalism is the best economic system for societal flourishing. The problem with arflandia is that many people think that market manipulation is perfectly fine as long as it comes from a corporate owned politician. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JAD762: Originally Posted By shaneus: Many here consider “capitalism” as the ultimate unquestionable true and correct path for humanity. Never considering that left to run the full course that it too has flaws. Look no further than the game “Monopoly”. As a model of capitalism it cuts to the final scene pretty quickly. Only one winner owning everything. I think it is the greatest system yet devised, in its middle phases. Where those with ambition grow and those with a little less become employees. But late stage capitalism turns ugly, with schemes like planned obsolescence, takeover of government, oligarchy. No vote for communism here, or bigger government. But what we currently have aint perfect either. And I am not sure its working for the majority anymore. With a perfect system apparently not yet figured out, we get cycles. Violent upheaval being next on the horizon. Remember getting mad and folding up the monopoly board when you realized you were the loser? Free market capitalism is the best economic system for societal flourishing. The problem with arflandia is that many people think that market manipulation is perfectly fine as long as it comes from a corporate owned politician. I honestly think most people are to propagandized to understand it. They are conditioned to kick down, while the elite run roughshod on their government. And even when presented with evidence that their political team and their chosen candidates are bought and paid for… cognitive dissonance and confirmation biases rule the day. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 9:57:19 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JAD762: Free market capitalism is the best economic system for societal flourishing. The problem with arflandia is that many people think that market manipulation is perfectly fine as long as it comes from a corporate owned politician. ETA- But yeah, despite all of arflandias bluster about CW2, investment corps housing policies are what may kick off real violence. Plato wasn’t wrong when he said that most revolutions are sparked when wealth is held by a few and most see no way of improving themselves. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JAD762: Originally Posted By shaneus: Many here consider “capitalism” as the ultimate unquestionable true and correct path for humanity. Never considering that left to run the full course that it too has flaws. Look no further than the game “Monopoly”. As a model of capitalism it cuts to the final scene pretty quickly. Only one winner owning everything. I think it is the greatest system yet devised, in its middle phases. Where those with ambition grow and those with a little less become employees. But late stage capitalism turns ugly, with schemes like planned obsolescence, takeover of government, oligarchy. No vote for communism here, or bigger government. But what we currently have aint perfect either. And I am not sure its working for the majority anymore. With a perfect system apparently not yet figured out, we get cycles. Violent upheaval being next on the horizon. Remember getting mad and folding up the monopoly board when you realized you were the loser? Free market capitalism is the best economic system for societal flourishing. The problem with arflandia is that many people think that market manipulation is perfectly fine as long as it comes from a corporate owned politician. ETA- But yeah, despite all of arflandias bluster about CW2, investment corps housing policies are what may kick off real violence. Plato wasn’t wrong when he said that most revolutions are sparked when wealth is held by a few and most see no way of improving themselves. The sad thing here is that even if that did spark off due to that, It’s likely that the anger would be misplaced/misdirected and those responsible wouldn’t face any repercussions. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:00:09 AM EDT
[#35]
Hedge funds etc. are investing in real estate because they know the dollar will be worthless.
They get printed money from the Government to buy real assets in order to be rent seekers. It will not end well for them. One word - Zillow Zillow tried to buy houses to flip but ended that program when they realized it was harder than they thought. Real estate investing is both an art and a science. It works better when it is your own money on the line and you are a local. A corporate toady using other people's money will not care about making the best decisions. Then there are tenants. Good ones are hard to find. As poverty increases...well, tenants can make you or break you. Seems like they want us all as slaves. Slavery has been tried and it did not work out. People need a stake in the game to work hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:09:21 AM EDT
[#36]
when it comes to PE and Hedge Funds....ethics is non existant. lol
specfically PE firms rarely add in value to society at all. Basically what they do is find a firm that's doing well. Buy it, lay off a bunch of folks, make the current folks do more, get a small bump in rev that isn't going to last long term and then sell the company. Rinse and repeat. |
|
|
|
COL
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:12:13 AM EDT
[#37]
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?  Arguably no one that is Chinese should be allowed to buy any commercial or farming real estate in the USA. 
|
|
|
UT, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:17:43 AM EDT
[#38]
No, they shouldn’t. If they want to build a house and sell it. Go head, by all means.
What’s going on is cronyism, not capitalism. |
|
|
AS, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:20:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: CoconutLaCroix]
[#39]
I don't see an issue with large institutions lobbying for cheap credit to purchase up all the homes, then lobbying for looser immigration policies to cause the price and rents on said homes to go through the roof. That's what the founding fathers would have wanted. They supported a landed aristocracy. Society functions best when a few politically connected people leverage the coercive power of the state to accumulate the majority of assets and everyone else is struggling to get by renting from them. Especially when many of the people were recently imported from 3rd world shitholes. That is the most socially stable type of society
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:22:30 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Duck_Hunt: [/b] I honestly think most people are to propagandized to understand it. They are conditioned to kick down, while the elite run roughshod on their government. And even when presented with evidence that their political team and their chosen candidates are bought and paid for… cognitive dissonance and confirmation biases rule the day. I'm sure there's some of that going on. There's a lot of one dimentional thinking on arflandia too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:26:02 AM EDT
[#41]
This is happening in a home buying/lending environment that isn’t organic. So all bets are off.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:30:58 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Duck_Hunt: The sad thing here is that even if that did spark off due to that, It’s likely that the anger would be misplaced/misdirected and those responsible wouldn’t face any repercussions. Indeed. Its been a few minutes since I've read The Prince, so excuse me if my details are off. But Machiavelli tells a story about a king who wanted to crack down on a problematic town, so he hired a strongman administrator to get it under control. The administrator enacted draconian measures, levied high taxes, and was an all around prick to the townspeople. The king got the control he wanted, but the people were so mad at the administrator that they were about to revolt against him. So the king arrested the administrator, pinned all the problems on him, and had him executed. At the end of it all the king had absolute control of the town, prospered from their taxes, and was loved by the people. If you want to really fix societies problems you have to limit the stringmasters, not their puppets. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:34:35 AM EDT
[#43]
If being a landlord is so profitable why don't builders rent out what they build?
Why don't property flippers fix and rent instead of fix and sell? Who will fix these houses the big corporations buy after they suck all the rent out of them? Government bailout here we come. |
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:35:49 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BMSMB: Because we aren't in a free market. Exactly |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:35:54 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1cheapshot: No, they shouldn’t. If they want to build a house and sell it. Go head, by all means. What’s going on is cronyism, not capitalism. I don’t think everyone understands this. I am all for a capitalistic free market, but we don’t have one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:41:08 AM EDT
[#46]
Originally Posted By BMGisbetter: Discuss I think it's bad for society and bad for anyone but a hedge firm. If they wanna invest buy as many stocks and bonds as they like because you can't live in a stock portfolio. I don’t have a problem with it, all the way up until it drives rents up and affects the rental market … and it appears that is already the case in some markets. Bear in mind, some of these properties being bought are being bought by the government thru groups like Blackrock…. Which is telling because it means your own government sees home as a more stable vehicle for wealth than the dollars they print. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:43:56 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Paul_Sothern: If being a landlord is so profitable why don't builders rent out what they build? Some do just that. There are literally ‘rental’ subdivisions Why don't property flippers fix and rent instead of fix and sell? Some do fix and rent Who will fix these houses the big corporations buy after they suck all the rent out of them? Government bailout here we come. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:47:05 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BillofRights: Interesting.  If an investor buys new houses as rental properties, that stimulates the building of more houses. More houses on the market, means prices go down. Supply and Demand. Facts, not feelings. The huge surge in pricing is due to 1. Very low interest rates. They should have Never been that low. 2. Inflation (Dollar devaluation). 3. Rules and regulations which limit land development and make Everything more expensive. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BillofRights: Originally Posted By BMGisbetter: Discuss I think it's bad for society and bad for anyone but a hedge firm. If they wanna invest buy as many stocks and bonds as they like because you can't live in a stock portfolio. Interesting. If an investor buys new houses as rental properties, that stimulates the building of more houses. More houses on the market, means prices go down. Supply and Demand. Facts, not feelings. The huge surge in pricing is due to 1. Very low interest rates. They should have Never been that low. 2. Inflation (Dollar devaluation). 3. Rules and regulations which limit land development and make Everything more expensive. Should that investor be allowed to financially back and consult with the politicians that create, enforce, and expand the rules and regulations that impact new development? Seems like that would be a lot closer to communism than restricting which investors are allowed to invest in single family homes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:58:03 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheOtherDave: I don’t have a problem with it, all the way up until it drives rents up and affects the rental market … and it appears that is already the case in some markets. Bear in mind, some of these properties being bought are being bought by the government thru groups like Blackrock…. Which is telling because it means your own government sees home as a more stable vehicle for wealth than the dollars they print. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheOtherDave: Originally Posted By BMGisbetter: Discuss I think it's bad for society and bad for anyone but a hedge firm. If they wanna invest buy as many stocks and bonds as they like because you can't live in a stock portfolio. I don’t have a problem with it, all the way up until it drives rents up and affects the rental market … and it appears that is already the case in some markets. Bear in mind, some of these properties being bought are being bought by the government thru groups like Blackrock…. Which is telling because it means your own government sees home as a more stable vehicle for wealth than the dollars they print. And who was one of the big heads that drove US fiscal policy… none other than Larry Fink him self. People need to wake the fuck up. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2024 10:58:14 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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" |
|
|
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.
