the population was 130 million in 1940. now its 330 million. i dont know what to tell you
So do an Infinity War snap, and wipe out half the population to get an abundance of housing again?
If houses depreciated like cars,wouldnt that solve most economic issues?
- Thread starter Still Benefited
- Start date
So do an Infinity War snap, and wipe out half the population to get an abundance of housing again?
Except in the real "real world" supply and demand is not a law of physics that determines prices without us being able to prevent it.
A price is not a thing in nature. Supply and demand thinking is only an article of faith in the ideology of neoliberalism.
The real reason house prices have gone up is because banks have been given a green light to lend out money with virtually no risk to themselves again after QE. And the middle class was all too eager to sell out to give the banks their profits without any thought given to how this would affect lower income families.
the cac mamba
Veteran
what the hell are you talking about?
how can supply and demand not be a thing in the housing market, when the population is increasing, and every house is different and located in different places?
and yes, a price is a fukkin 'thing in nature' when one house is a 1BR condo, and one house is a 3BR with a pool. although 'in nature', animals just kill each other over better real estate
Why would you keep it if you know its depreciating though? Same reason why people sell their cars. So if home values were dropping some people would sell. While some people would hold it and it just rent it out. At a certain point it makes more sense to use a 20K house as a rental property.
Also with this new system,more women would be home makers. People would be impregnating their women more than any time in history. More population growth=need for building
Plus you are ignoring that once people have money disposable income and early retirement savings. I believe you would have more prosperous cities. So there would be more incentive to build in some of these midwestern/southern cities. And people wouldnt be running to the same 10 cities.
Less homelessness,less welfare ,elderly in good shape financially
OP asked why prices for houses have gone up even though they've gotten older.what the hell are you talking about?
how can supply and demand not be a thing in the housing market, when the population is increasing, and every house is different and located in different places?
and yes, a price is a fukkin 'thing in nature' when one house is a 1BR condo, and one house is a 3BR with a pool. although 'in nature', animals just kill each other over better real estate
You mocked him saying it is a matter of 'supply and demand' as if it explains anything.
But as I've said, the real reason is that banks need someone to take out a loan with them so they can make money. Hence they offer people a boatload of credit so they can earn significant interest. If banks didn't do this, no matter how much people want to live in Miami, the prices of the houses couldn't keep going up the way they do because people wouldn't have the money to bid or pay for them.
It's not the 'demand' of people's desires that caused prices to go up but rather the banks' predatory business model. They're flooding the market with credit. They're driving this. And again, it's only because prices are allowed to be set above a certain point, which isn't an iron law of nature that we couldn't choose to overrule.
Invoking 'supply and demand' is meaningless in this context. It's only restating that every sale has a buyer and a seller which explains nothing.
Well fine,your house can depreciate slower in Miami than in Arkansas
. If you really wanna live in Miami and be a big shot. You can pay 500K for that house thats only valued at 350K. But just know when you move in,its only worth 350K. Unless you can find somebody willing to overpay and take a financial loss too. This is true supply and demand
Elim Garak
Veteran
its not the worst idea but the financial system as you know it would have to be revamped
a great deal of the leverage is in both the land AND the "30 year" aspect of mortgages
baked in interest/payments is what keeps the banks fat and happy and willing to lend in the first place
Why would you keep it if you know its depreciating though? Same reason why people sell their cars. So if home values were dropping some people would sell. While some people would hold it and it just rent it out. At a certain point it makes more sense to use a 20K house as a rental property.
Also with this new system,more women would be home makers. People would be impregnating their women more than any time in history. More population growth=need for building
Plus you are ignoring that once people have money disposable income and early retirement savings. I believe you would have more prosperous cities. So there would be more incentive to build in some of these midwestern/southern cities. And people wouldnt be running to the same 10 cities.
Less homelessness,less welfare ,elderly in good shape financially
Let me ask you this, why do you think items depreciate in value?
What gives anything value?
Branding,age,wear and tear,racism and supply and demand
Things depreciate in value because something happens that causes people to not want that item as much as they did previously. With some items that is age, while in other cases age causes the value to increase.
You keep saying homes/land should decrease in value but that would require people to want homes and land in the future less than they do now. But you haven’t given a reason why that would be the case.
Homes/land aren’t like cars where a company can just make a new one. Homes/land also aren’t like cars where a new car is almost always better than an old one. A new house is not necessarily better than an old one. I’d rather have an old house located in an area with lots of resources, restaurants, entertainment, parks, etc….nearby then a new house in the boonies a 2 hour drive away from everything.
Land is finite, location is everything, and everyone needs a place to live.
How are you going to convince people to not want a home/land to the point where they would essentially be giving it away? And once they give it away, what would they do about their now homeless living situation?
Last edited:
Yeah I did,depreciation of home values would keep people from holding on to a home because its no longer an investment. Less people needing 30 years to pay off a house would keep people holding on to homes for less time. Depreciating home values would mean people have no incentive to stop more apartments from being built. Lower cost of homes would allow people to save more. Which would allow people to upgrade homes and/or rent out the old one. Or retire earlier and spread out accross the country.
If car makers had incentive to not make new cars,because the value of all cars would go up. Then cars would be like houses. In fact your seeing some of that now. Difference is,if I NEEDa car right now(supply and demand). I know that Im overpaying,but I know im going to take an L by doing so. Because unless I have a classic car,the value will not increase.
If you want to live in miami bad,you can willfully overpay. Knowing that your going to take a loss due to depreciation. In my example I said a 40 + year old house. And only took 20K off the value. Structurally you dont think it would take 20K to bring a 40 year old house back to new?
Im okay with a floor even,because a house is still a house. Which is why I said the value dropping to 10K sounds a little extreme.
