Originally posted by AThousandYoungHousing (esp. middle-class and upwards) is a so-called positional good. Its price does not depend on the greed of "rich people" but simply on what people are making relative to others. That's partially why housing prices go down during economic tough times and up doing economic booms (the other main factor being speculation, of course).
Housing is not something rich people buy because they "like to have it". They buy it because it's an efficient way to extract money from non-landowners with minimal investment of time and effort by the rich person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positional_good
Originally posted by no1marauderThe FRS created artificially high home prices. They are manipulating a lot more than most people think.
Is there a point lurking somewhere?
Explain how home prices are "artificially" high, please.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/28/markets-mortgages-fed-idUSL2N0CK1KN20130328
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMaybe in your neck of the woods. In my neck of the woods, by and large, people buy housing to use it.
Housing is not something rich people buy because they "like to have it". They buy it because it's an efficient way to extract money from non-landowners with minimal investment of time and effort by the rich person.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Housing (esp. middle-class and upwards) is a so-called positional good. Its price does not depend on the greed of "rich people" but simply on what people are making relative to others. That's partially why housing prices go down during economic tough times and up doing economic booms (the other main factor being speculation, of course).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positional_good
a positional good is a product or service whose value is at least in part (if not exclusively) a function of its ranking in desirability by others, in comparison to substitutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positional_good
What are the substitutes?
Originally posted by AThousandYounga positional good is a product or service whose value is at least in part (if not exclusively) a function of its ranking in desirability by others, [b]in comparison to substitutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positional_good
What are the substitutes?[/b]A different or rental home (in the case of homes of course).
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf it's "efficient way to extract money from non-landowners with minimal investment of time and effort by the rich person", how come they derive only 3% of the total income from it?http://barticles.blogs.timesdispatch.com/2012/05/02/kv96ic28-sources-of-income-for-the-top-1-of/
Housing is not something rich people buy because they "like to have it". They buy it because it's an efficient way to extract money from non-landowners with minimal investment of time and effort by the rich person.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI fail to see the distinction. IF every bit of land hadn't been parceled out by governments and the land owner's right to exclusive use enforced by the police, you'd be able to go anywhere you want and raise and/or capture any food you desired. So "government interference" is the basis of the prices of peanut butter as well.
Because everybody is legally required to live somewhere or face legal punishment. If that were not true, housing prices would be far lower. Housing is not an option, legally, it's a requirement, and that modifies the dynamics of the housing market. The demand curve is shifted due to government interference.
You might like this argument better - ...[text shortened]... ural Right to something as artificial as "stocks" which do not represent any physical object.
Originally posted by no1marauder1) Addiction to high profits even when expectation value is not necessarily high i.e. addictive behavior
If it's "efficient way to extract money from non-landowners with minimal investment of time and effort by the rich person", how come they derive only 3% of the total income from it?http://barticles.blogs.timesdispatch.com/2012/05/02/kv96ic28-sources-of-income-for-the-top-1-of/
2) Other means may be even more efficient than owning land, capitalism is REALLY easy if you're rich
3) There's only so much land out there
4) On top of passive income from owning land, working can provide active income, especially when "working" involves voting yourself bonuses
Let's look at the other sources of income.
"Interest income" well that falls under number 2) above
I can't read the rest of the site because there is a REALLY annoying ad blocking my view unfortunately.