Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo owning land is no different from owning any other income producing asset.
1) Addiction to high profits even when expectation value is not necessarily high i.e. addictive behavior
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 "w ...[text shortened]... e rest of the site because there is a REALLY annoying ad blocking my view unfortunately.
I think somebody here already said that .................................
Originally posted by no1marauderYou don't understand the difference between 1) legal obligation to house oneself and 2) no legal obligation to buy peanut butter in an environment where food is plentiful and free?
I 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.
You can buy peanut butter with the free food stamps the government gives you.
Originally posted by no1marauderExcept other income producing assets are not made "extra profitable" by sending the police to arrest people like land is.
So owning land is no different from owning any other income producing asset.
I think somebody here already said that .................................
Originally posted by AThousandYoungA) There is no "legal obligation to house oneself". I see homeless people all the time. Once there was this old homeless guy sleeping in a bus stop close to a gas station I go to when the temperature was subzero for a few nights. I was worried the guy would freeze to death and had my sister (a social worker at the county jail at the time) call a homeless advocacy group that ran a shelter and they sent some workers in a van to talk to him. He told that to "f*** off; it's a free country and I'll sleep where I want". And they left him alone and he slept in the damn bus shelter all winter.
You don't understand the difference between 1) legal obligation to house oneself and 2) no legal obligation to buy peanut butter in an environment where food is plentiful and free?
You can buy peanut butter with the free food stamps the government gives you.
B) The government has no obligation to provide you food stamps. They do, but they could also provide you with free housing if they felt like it so I, again, fail to see the distinction.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think you're missing the point. A different house is a substitute for a house. A house in the center of Helsinki is more expensive than one in the outskirts. Why? Not because it is more expensive to build or maintain, but because it is more desirable and only so many people can live in the center of Helsinki. The prices go up because more people want a home there and the people with the most money end up getting it.
I don't think that counts. Housing is not a substitute for housing.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat is the difference? If somebody tries to take your stock certificate, the police will arrest them because ownership entitles you to exclusive use (that's what it means to "own" something). Land isn't treated any differently from any other owned asset.
Except other income producing assets are not made "extra profitable" by sending the police to arrest people like land is.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOK, I'll accept that "a house in the center of Helsinki" might be a "so-called positional good".
I think you're missing the point. A different house is a substitute for a house. A house in the center of Helsinki is more expensive than one in the outskirts. Why? Not because it is more expensive to build or maintain, but because it is more desirable and only so many people can live in the center of Helsinki. The prices go up because more people want a home there and the people with the most money end up getting it.
Organic peanut butter probably is too.
But that doesn't mean Skippy Brand Smooth Variety Peanut Butter is a substitute for peanut butter. Nor is "a house on the outskirts" a substitute for housing.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe housing and stock markets are recovering from historic lows. It is nearly impossible to totally suppress any reasonably free market forever.
I was assured by sasquatch and the other usual suspects last November that an Obama re-election would cause economic catastrophe as all the "producers" fled taking all the jobs and money. Yet I read this yesterday:
NEW YORK -- The dizzying 2013 stock market rallywas reignited Tuesday by multiyear highs in home prices and consumer confidence, a sign th ...[text shortened]... ook-strengthen-us-consumer-confidence-climbs-to-5/
What gives, fellas?
Still, the continuing artificial inflation created by below market interest rates can't sustain an actual recovery, but can produce another bubble which will predictably burst.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraPlease KN, you know better. Inflation isn't rising prices, it is actual inflation of the supply of money. Rising prices is a symptom of the real inflation, and it is always a delayed effect.
Yeah, inflation is at a whopping 1.1%, better spend your money today before it's gone!
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=penniur_papers
Absent that "trick", most people wouldn't be able to afford the house in the first place. So where does the "screwing" come in again?
As recently as 1950, mortgage debt was 10% of GDP. Now it is over 65%. In the 19th century it was common that people built their home, often with the help of neighbors. They bought, or harvested the lumber, and purchased the other required materials.
Without loan sharks many financial transactions could not have taken place, yet G men fought this form of crime intensely. Now credit card companies charge much the same usury rates as loan sharks used to, approved by our government.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung"Buying" a home is an interesting notion. You borrow money for thirty years at today's way below market rate, and assuming the property doesn't deteriorate, and inflation is roughly the same as the interest rate (3😵, you break even, and the cost is the maintenance, taxes, and insurance.
Now's a pretty good time - if stocks are really inflated. Remember when the DOW went over 10,000 and it was in the news? It's over 15,000 now. Highest it's ever been.
IF stocks are overpriced, they could come tumbling down at any moment. Sell them now.
But they don't represent personal property so it doesn't really matter.
If you don't o ...[text shortened]... and you are guaranteed to lose money that way. So that's not a good financial decision.
Those are some pretty big assumptions. All physical property deteriorates. Taxes are unpredictable, as is inflation, and interest rates for mortgages are at historical lows, below true market interest. This is all long term calculation, and ignores the short term reality of whether the mortgage debtor can afford the house payments in the future.
The renter, may choose month to month obligations, or an annual lease or longer term depending on his needs and financial stability.
Buying stocks is business speculation, and isn't for everyone. The stock market is one of the most controlled and least free markets, one that I would not trust for future security.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe markets for some things are freer than those for others. Housing is among the least free.
I 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.