Hey biz Would houses be cheaper if banks couldn't loan people

>>1300141
If it's negative interest or what ever it's dirt cheap. Look in poor nation with that loan then move it to an offshore account. Have a good legal team saying that they should have never accepted if you arn't part of that country.

>>1300141
Of coarse. Interest rates and housing prices are inversly related, just as interest rates and investment is. Therefore forecasting housing prices should be fairly simple in theory, the price should be a function of income (GDP), interest rates and some factor for housing speculation.

>>1300141

Yes they would be cheaper but it would GREATLY stifle growth and advances in home quality and conveniences.

Part of the reason American homes are typically the largest and the nicest is that this country has always put an emphasis on the availibility of home loans and growth of the housing industry.

>>1300164
my generation cant afford homes because of the lending schemes though.

>>1300195
Real estate is a shit investment anyway.

>>1300196
I think he means a house to live in lol

>>1300164
Would it still stifle growth if you could get a loan for new development but not to buy an existing property?
Of course I understand the need for sufficient housing and the desire to avoid favelas or slums, but I am appalled that in the 21st century when materials and labour are so cheap, it still takes 30 years to pay off a simple place to reside in.

>>1300195

Sadly true. Although I would argue that bad lending was not the problem. It was all the derivative investments that fucked our economy up. Without those I think the 08 thing would have just been a hiccup and some people would have lost their houses and some banks would have lost some money. The 50-1 investments on the loans were the real killer.

>>1300223

Yes, because the housing economy works like a sea creature.

You start with a small shell, then a bigger one, and so on.... Most families will go through 3 - 5 house changes in a life time, each time moving up.

But this is just my guess tho, not 100% sure.

> the materials are cheap
the materials may be cheap but the labor is not. The foundation, the electrical, the pipes, the chimney, the roof, many appliances. Many people work together for 6 months to build a home. Many of those people are experts making like $25/hr. So just add everything up and it makes sense why a home costs what it does.

>>1300239
Well obviously it's still expensive to build a house but house prices seem frankly decoupled from laborer wages and material costs. In my country anyway (Australia lol) houses have been going up anywhere from 7-15% a year in the cities. Wages have definitely not been going up that much and materials should have been getting cheaper with the steeply falling oil price. I mean the average house is going for something like 20x the median income.

>>1300234
This. People suggesting that housing, or education, would be cheaper without loans are playing a very dangerous game. Anybody who's driven down a street and seen the same storefronts vacant for months or even years on end knows that prices down always adjust downward to meet affordability. All the removal of loans will do is increase the number of homeless, uneducated, and unemployed.

The real problem are financialization leeches sucking the life out of and providing no useful input into the economy that everybody else lives in.

>>1300141
No theyd be outrageously expensive, so would cars and all of our consumers goods. You literally couldn't have modern society without fractional reserve banking , with less velocity of money interest rates would be insanely high so to get someone to loan you say 150k for a house they would have to benefit more from lending to you over a great amount of time than they could lending elsewhere so you'de have like...40% "fixed" rates or greater

same for cars and everything else , if money itself was scarce then lenders expect much higher returns

>>1300257
they aint making any new land