housing market

What the average citizen supports is irrelevant

>>1682441
40% of millennials live with their parents
The new "average person" doesn't give a damn about owning a home

>>1682467
>40% of millennials live with their parents

Millennials dreaming of inheriting a nice, free, comfy home to live in forever will be seriously disappointing to learn that mom and pop didn't save enough for retirement and will need to take a reverse mortgage on that home.

who would buy into property now?
only millennials chasing prestige, or who are mislead

the price can't rise forever, trying to buy-sell short term is playing against the odds

retirees all decided to sell their homes to corporations rather than giving them to their children, selfish fuckers

those homes will all be scooped up by investors, leading to an unstable state where greedy investors jack up prices, but increasingly hold less non-property assets, and are owed money mainly by people with no significant secondary asset

therefore a crash is almost inevitable the way I see it

when the crash comes, the government should boot out the capitalists and either regulate pricing, or outright ban investment in existing homes

>>1682441
Is that some chink version of Palm Jumeira? Good grief.

>>1682441
>>1682496

high real estate prices drive the construction of new homes - wrong
but there will always be demand for housing - wrong

real estate treated as a commodity are immobilized vehicles of value

debt is correlated to the implied chase or simply cost of living, not all homeowners intrinsically speculate

what happened in 2008 is collaterized debt obligations that floated on imaginary values that led to a bust and domino effect, tighter regulation is currently in place

the implied crippling debt is just a byproduct of degenerate mismanagement, one can always stay as liquid as possible.

we're presumably not under feudalism in the strictest sense but alienated labor and the fetishization of commodity, following your train of thought.

The outcome of equalizing everyone else leads to a way literal standard of living, property prices did crash nearly a decade ago. Savings are usually placed somewhere.

You would need to expound on your doomsday scenario of a crash in housing redux because other often global factors are currently in play. You'd need to tone that down and get some middleground because otherwise its fear mongering as I see it but you're entitled to your opinion.

>>1683214

dystopian isn't it

>>1682441
Average citizen should support the commercialization of the housing market because state will always deliver only shit. I am not saying it is easy to own a house but having one through private market offers a lot more dignity than having a shitty concrete box assigned to you by the state.

File: slight chance .jpg (146KB, 1084x806px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1084x806px

>>1682441
>he thinks the allocation of resources under state owned housing is superior

Sticking to pure economic analysis, real estate assets are excludable and rival. Therefore, they're private goods, meaning they're handled most efficiently by the private sector.

The practical outcome? It goes to shit. When rent control kicks in, landlords lose incentive to maintain their places and a black market kicks in. This is literally covered in every macro or micro 101 textbook and it's called a price ceiling. It doesn't work. You're taking that and putting it on steroids. The government has no incentives to keep these places up to date and repaired.

Case studies: Soviet Union, Venezuela, and most other socialist countries that nationalized their housing sectors

>>1683435
>but there will always be demand for housing - wrong
people need somewhere to live bud, while the demand might not grow if the population doesn't increase there is always a base demand

>real estate treated as a commodity are immobilized vehicles of value
what do you mean, is that even english?

it's a VERY naive view to say household debt issues are a result of poor finanial management
the reality is it's a combination of high deposits, low interest rates and reckless lending, absence of cheap housing

the way I see it housing is a parralell market, you have homeowners who like you say arn't trying to speculate
then you have investors speculating

I maintain the investors are ruining it for everyone and should be thrown out

What I love about commies and lefties in general is that they're the most regressive and against social movility people that exist, they're like feudalists and they don't even realize. For them there has to be rent control so nobody has to move ever, who cares if some guy wants to live there too and has worked his whole life to achieve that. No I should be able to live here paying whatever I want and that other guy that offers ten times the rent I pay he can go fuck himself, tough luck that he wasn't born here.

>>1683717
I understand the nature of a price ceiling, has it occurred to you what you are taught about economics is only fundamental to our current system

state control could take a vast number of forms
if we were simply to put upper limits on rent/mortages then the result would be all houses would degrade naturally to that set level
in the short term landlords wouldn't look after their places, but long term it means houses would be built with that bar in mind
it's only an issue you get by rushing into things

things I would consider
>limiting the number of properties any natural person can own
>stopping real estate agents owning homes, because when they are paid to sell private property this creates a conflict of interest and is asking for a monopoly
>minimum holding times on property, say 5 years
>build some housing projects, low rises that kind of thing
>ban foreigners from buying existing property (which is becoming widespread)

>>1683866
that is a misunderstanding
rent control=/=mobility control

mobility control does exist, but it's a separate issue

in china for instance the government is terrified a billion people from the countryside will move to the cities, causing waves of crime, disorder and poverty
for this reason the chinese deliberately have mobility control
it's not because their housing is affordable

File: ceiling ceiling .gif (3KB, 257x251px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 257x251px

>>1683870
This post is literally "I don't want to live in a flyover state: the post"

>"Control the number of properties people can own"
"i'm an autistic NEET and because my plate of food is shit, nobody can have a good plate of food"

>"Houses would degrade naturally to that set level"
Or you'd have a black market, which has been empirically proven to take place?

>"Houses would be built with that bar in mind"
Or investors would bring their capital to other sectors where they would get more profits.

>"It's only an issue you get by rushing into things"
Was 60 years of Soviet state owned housing not enough?

>"I understand the nature of a price ceiling"
No you don't, pic related