patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
756,819 comments in 77,896 posts by 11,081 registered users, 4 online now: drBu, errc, Onvacation, Tim Aurora

new post

Million Dollar Shack

By jvolstad   2016 Sep 1, 7:47pm   4 links   12,092 views   122 comments   watch (0)   quote      

#housing #bubble

« First     « Previous     Comments 83-122 of 122     Last »

83   Strategist   2016 Sep 6, 6:59am     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

bob2356 says

bob2356 says

That has to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen written. So either you have enough income to buy a house or you live in a cardboard box since there will be zero rental units.

Read Dan's other posts.

84   Dan8267   2016 Sep 6, 7:20am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Looks like CIC has his panties in a bunch again.

85   Dan8267   2016 Sep 6, 8:00am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Kids, remember to stay off the drugs or you'll be as delusional as CIC and, like him, wake up pantless with a homeless guy in Atlantic City.

86   Dan8267   2016 Sep 6, 9:00am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Honey, if dog barfed on the carpet, you'd say that was a smackdown. Just because you hate me and want any excuse to say I lost an argument doesn't make it true. You really need to get over your obsession of me. You spend way too much time thinking about me and grasping at any straw to attack me. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

By the way, no one respects Bob, just like no one respects you.

87   Blurtman   2016 Sep 6, 9:18am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

turtledove says

We have a lot of people who want to park their money here in the US. There doesn't seem to be much cost for that. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the parking of money here in the US. I just think we should look at it like laundering

Here you go: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/trump-china-heart-u-s-economic-problems/

At around 2:50 Navarro discusses cash purchases of RE by Chinese investors.

88   Dan8267   2016 Sep 6, 9:18am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

It's amazing how dumb people think that repeating a lie will make it true. CIC demonstrates this perfectly.

I guess that's why Fox News works on the weak minded.

Of course, CIC is just upset that Donald Trump is going to lose to Hillary. He can't even defeat the most unpopular Democratic candidate ever. It's a sign that CIC's conservative party is dying. That's why CIC is PMSing so much today.

89   Rashomon   2016 Sep 6, 9:55am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

It's amazing how dumb people think that repeating a lie will make it true. CIC demonstrates this perfectly.

I guess that's why Fox News works on the weak minded.

Of course, CIC is just upset that Donald Trump is going to lose to Hillary. He can't even defeat the most unpopular Democratic candidate ever. It's a sign that CIC's conservative party is dying. That's why CIC is PMSing so much today.

Bob raised some valid points that you haven't addressed.

CIC is just a childish troll playing you. Why not put him on ignore, or play it so that he ends up putting you on ignore as he did for myself and PCGyver? A hilarious response from someone crying over and over to Patrick about wanting the ignore function removed. Perfect.

90   Dan8267   2016 Sep 6, 10:46am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Rashomon says

Bob raised some valid points that you haven't addressed.

Present them in a coherent fashion in contrast his Bob's trolling and I'll gladly address them.

Rashomon says

CIC is just a childish troll playing you. Why not put him on ignore, or play it so that he ends up putting you on ignore as he did for myself and PCGyver?

I've had CIC on ignore for the past six months. He still constantly logs off to see my posts and then respond. He's obsessed as losers typically are.

Rashomon says

A hilarious response from someone crying over and over to Patrick about wanting the ignore function removed.

Conservatives are hypocrites. CIC is the mother of all hypocrites.

91   Rashomon   2016 Sep 6, 10:59am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Rashomon says

Bob raised some valid points that you haven't addressed.

Present them in a coherent fashion in contrast his Bob's trolling and I'll gladly address them.

You read his post about military housing and the poor track record governments have managing housing both in this country and abroad. You want government to take control of the rental market. There are clearly more than a few issues that arise from that.

92   Dan8267   2016 Sep 6, 12:58pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Rashomon says

You read his post about military housing and the poor track record governments have managing housing both in this country and abroad. You want government to take control of the rental market. There are clearly more than a few issues that arise from that.

It all depends on how it's implemented. Just as one can say "government rentals failed here and here, therefore all government rentals must fail", one can easily replace the word "government" with "human" and reach the same exact conclusion for all rentals by human beings. This is called a hasty generalization. It's a fallacy.

If you don't like the idea of a politician controlling rent, well, that's not my idea. The entire rental management, setting rents and issuing the leases, can be automated. Government does not mean politicians and bureaucrats. It can mean computers. If we can automate banking, and we've done that extensively, we can automate housing rentals. The fact that the rental money goes to maintaining the property and paying a share of land taxes instead of profit taking does in any way make this harder to do than rentals of privately owned property.

If anything, the public nature of the system allows for greater tenant feedback and control. Why do you think no system that does not involve private profit could possibly work? Does our military work? That's a public system run by the government.

The problem isn't with government but how conservatives run government.

93   Rashomon   2016 Sep 6, 1:16pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

The problem would seem more to do with an unrealistic plan than governments or conservatives. Why not posit simpler and more realistic plans that have an outside chance of being implemented rather than pie in the sky plans that we all know cannot be funded and would never be implemented even if they could be?

94   Dan8267   2016 Sep 6, 1:24pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

What exactly is unrealistic about my idea? What is so complicated about it? By having a single national standard for rentals, the system I propose would actually be vastly simpler than the status quo. If you think that simpler means better or more likely to succeed, then my system should have far fewer failures than the status quo.

Furthermore, my system requires no funding. It is self-sufficient. The rent collected from tenants is the only money used to maintain the system. And without profit taking, the rents collected from tenants will be far less than what they pay right now.

95   Rashomon   2016 Sep 6, 1:33pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

What does a 'single national standard for rentals' mean for starters? And how do you propose the government gets to control all rental properties in a country that can't even pass universal health care?

96   Dan8267   2016 Sep 6, 1:54pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Rashomon says

What does a 'single national standard for rentals' mean for starters?

Standardize all aspects of the rental process from maintenance policies to advertisement to the rental contract.

Rashomon says

And how do you propose the government gets to control all rental properties in a country that can't even pass universal health care?

I was going to use computers.

97   Rashomon   2016 Sep 6, 2:07pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

I was going to use computers.

Unfortunately for your plan, that doesn't give you the right to control privately owned rentals. How do you propose the government would be able to do that?

Dan8267 says

Standardize all aspects of the rental process from maintenance policies to advertisement to the rental contract.

Why should a country the size of the US with very distinct markets have a standard approach in all areas? You aren't going to have a fixed rental price, are you? What does a standard maintenance policy mean, for example? You want the same policy for old and new properties, for those in deserts and those on the border of Canada....?

Housing isn't a national problem; it's a local one and should be addressed on a local/state level with federal involvement in things like freeing of government land for building affordable housing or restricting the ability of people to buy investment property and hold it without tenants, etc., etc.

98   Dan8267   2016 Sep 6, 3:40pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Rashomon says

Unfortunately for your plan, that doesn't give you the right to control privately owned rentals. How do you propose the government would be able to do that?

1. Tax private rent at 100%.
2. Let the housing market plunge.
3. Buy up properties at market price.
4. Either fix up or tear down and build new on the lots.
5. As needed use eminent domain on commercial real estate.

All progress entails change. All change entails some discomfort. But switching to new systems can be done gradually and incrementally as well. Change is hard is no excuse for not fixing problems and coming up with better, more productive systems.

Rashomon says

Why should a country the size of the US with very distinct markets have a standard approach in all areas?

Because rules can be generalized and parameterized to handle specifics. This is done all the time in software, including software written by private enterprise to provide services sold to the public sector. No one bitches when the generalization is done by private enterprise. Why do the laws of logic suddenly change when there is no profit motive? The code is the same. The execution is the same.

My whole life has been spent solving exactly the kinds of problems you think are insurmountable. It is common for software companies to create a single, coherent system that replaces a multitude of incompatible systems and does the job better at a tiny fraction of the cost. I do this crap every single day. So do millions of other programmers. The great improvements in productivity and per capita GDP are a testament to our success in doing exactly this.

The only difference is that instead of enriching a few, I am proposing that we enrich everyone.

Rashomon says

You aren't going to have a fixed rental price, are you?

No. The rent, as I stated several times, is simply the sum of the maintenance cost and taxes. The taxes are determined by the portion of land use and by total government spending.

Rashomon says

What does a standard maintenance policy mean, for example? You want the same policy for old and new properties, for those in deserts and those on the border of Canada....?

The domain experts will write the specific rule as happens whenever software automates jobs.

If you're complaint is that you need two rules X and Y, for A and B respectively, then the answer is that any two rules can be combined into a single rule in the form

if A then X else if B then Y else DefaultRule

Whatever "special circumstances" you think require different rules in different areas can be generalized and parameterized and formally coded into a single system. Again, this is exactly what every single software company that has ever existed does on a daily basis. Does PatNet need a separate system of rules for every thread and every subject matter? Hell, does Wiki.com need a separate database, server, rules, and technology for every wiki on it? No. As different as the wikis are -- and they are vastly different in both subject matter and appearance -- it's all one system for every single wiki.

Rashomon says

Housing isn't a national problem; it's a local one and should be addressed on a local/state level with federal involvement in things like freeing of government land for building affordable housing or restricting the ability of people to buy investment property and hold it without tenants, etc., etc.

One, there is no reason to believe that problems need to be solved either by municipalities or states instead of at the federal level. This is a dogma often repeated but never justified.

Two, most of the problems that are given to the local or state government to solve end up being solved by a private company located in a single city and that private company writes software for the entire nation, not a single municipality or state. So in effect you still have one national solution even though the private company is being paid by local or state governments. This means your assumption is empirically false.

Third, even if there were decisions that had to be made at the local or state level, these decisions could be made locally and fed as parameters and preferences to the nation-wide system, which is exactly what happens in the status quo. For example, your city's website uses HTTP not some local protocol for serving multimedia content. It's the same Internet everywhere. It's also the same IT everywhere even if the decision making is left to the hands of local governments.

Fourth, everything that has happened in the past 30 years unequivocally demonstrates that a single world-wide solution to a problem is always superior to local solutions. Why have thousands of local solutions, half-ass implemented with too little funding, when for a tiny fraction of that cost you could have a single solution funded thousands of times more with the best people working on the problem and the greatest amount of refining and learning? There's a reason there aren't hundreds of Googles. You only need one really good solution, and it's cheaper and better than repeating the effort. You get economies of scale and a single system to fix. Having a multitude of systems has always been a terrible idea and it's the leading cause of waste and ineffectiveness.

99   Rashomon   2016 Sep 6, 3:55pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

I apparently don't have as much time as you do to hammer out long streams of fanciful housing plans, so just a few points...Dan8267 says

No. The rent, as I stated several times, is simply the sum of the maintenance cost and taxes. The taxes are determined by the portion of land use and by total government spending.

Right there is your plan to destroy the housing market in one go. It would make the previous crash look minor in comparison. How exactly do you think that would play out? How many millions of people lost their homes and jobs last time round and yet you want to introduce a system where rents are based only on maintenance and taxes (and yet simultaneously are going to reflect the entirely different types of housing markets around the country). What would that make a 3 bed, 1500 sq ft in San Fransisco... and one in Waco Texas? What would that then do to house prices? Would anyone not be under water on their mortgage?

Dan8267 says

Fourth, everything that has happened in the past 30 years unequivocally demonstrates that a single world-wide solution to a problem is always superior to local solutions.

No, it doesn't. Housing doesn't require a single world-wide solution - that is beyond laughable. It requires very specific local action to address the housing needs of that particular area.

Dan8267 says

If you're complaint is that you need two rules X and Y, for A and B respectively, then the answer is that any two rules can be combined into a single rule in the form

if A then X else if B then Y else DefaultRule

Whatever "special circumstances" you think require different rules in different areas can be generalized and parameterized and formally coded into a single system. Again, this is exactly what every single software company that has ever existed does on a daily basis. Does PatNet need a separate system of rules for every thread and every subject matter? Hell, does Wiki.com need a separate database, server, rules, and technology for every wiki on it? No. As different as the wikis are -- and they are vastly different in both subject matter and appearance -- it's all one system for every single wiki.

How is setting rental levels around a whole country comparable to Wiki.com? Virtually every street has a variation in what can be demanded in rent. The only logical conclusion from what you are proposing is sweeping uniformity in rental prices, which brings us to your next point...

Dan8267 says

why have thousands of local solutions, half-ass implemented with too little funding, when for a tiny fraction of that cost...

No, the cost of your plan to the economy would be staggering.

100   Dan8267   2016 Sep 6, 4:25pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Rashomon says

I apparently don't have as much time as you do to hammer out long streams of fanciful housing plans

Write faster.

Anything you can say in a tweet is not worth saying. Real analysis takes more than 150 characters.

Rashomon says

It would make the previous crash look minor in comparison.

Bubbles are bad. The bursts are not.

It would be far better for our society if people didn't spend most of their money on housing. Then they could spend money on the other 99.9% of the economy.

You are assuming that unaffordably high housing prices are a good thing. They are not. They are a stranglehold on the economy just like high college and health care costs are.

Rashomon says

What would that make a 3 bed, 1500 sq ft in San Fransisco... and one in Waco Texas? What would that then do to house prices?

Both rents and house prices would plummet, allowing everyone to own their own home. The money freed up from excessive rental or mortgage payments would allow people to purchase cars, electronics, vacations, restaurant meals, theme park admissions, opera tickets, etc. It would be a boom for productivity. Instead of wasting money to get a bare necessity, people could purchase a wide array of goods and services including luxuries.

This situation happened in the past. When the black death killed a third to a quarter of Europe's population, the peasants that survived were able to earn more and had more disposable income. We call the result of this the Renaissance. Allowing the masses to have much more disposable income would create a second Renaissance that would improve the quality of life above the status quo as much as the previous Renaissance did.

Concentrating wealth into the hands of a few results in a severely depressed economy. All good economies are built on the virtuous cycle of production and consumption by all.

Rashomon says

Would anyone not be under water on their mortgage?

Being underwater on a mortgage does not make a person in a worst financial position if they intend on staying in their house. Furthermore, like last time, people will simply strategically default if it is in their financial interest. If they don't want to, they can simply continue to pay their mortgage and are no worse off. They have already spent the money they borrowed. Whether they are underwater or not does not affect what their house provides them.

It is not good for society to make housing expensive simply to protect the equity of people who overpaid because they were expecting housing prices to rise. Why should society at large favor prior house buyers over future ones? Doing so does not increase the real wealth of the nation or make the economy more efficient.

Rashomon says

How is setting rental levels around a whole country comparable to Wiki.com?

Same algorithm, different return values.

Rashomon says

The only logical conclusion from what you are proposing is sweeping uniformity in rental prices

If you think that then you clearly do not understand what I have written. Sorry, but I cannot help you with your reading comprehension skills. What I written clearly does not suggest anything remotely like that. Perhaps you are allowing your political leanings to prevent you from understanding what I wrote. Most Americans today assume that if a person isn't on their team, they must play for the one and only other team. But in reality, there are no teams, just ideas.

I suggest you reread what I wrote until it is obvious to you that I am not proposing uniform rents around the country. It should be obvious to you that I am not and quite frankly, it's shocking that you even think that.

Rashomon says

The only logical conclusion from what you are proposing is sweeping uniformity in rental prices, which brings us to your next point... No, the cost of your plan to the economy would be staggering.

Not only is this a baseless assertion, but given your faulty assumption, it is clearly wrong.

101   Rashomon   2016 Sep 6, 5:05pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Write faster.

Anything you can say in a tweet is not worth saying. Real analysis takes more than 150 characters.

You can be a piece of work. Misplaced arrogance is not a good trait. This is a casual forum not a publication.

Dan8267 says

Being underwater on a mortgage does not make a person in a worst financial position if they intend on staying in their house. Furthermore, like last time, people will simply strategically default if it is in their financial interest. If they don't want to, they can simply continue to pay their mortgage and are no worse off. They have already spent the money they borrowed. Whether they are underwater or not does not affect what their house provides them.

That's your response? Seriously? The financial repercussions of your plan are obvious, but apparently not to you.

Dan8267 says

If you think that then you clearly do not understand what I have written. Sorry, but I cannot help you with your reading comprehension skills.

My reading comprehension skills are just fine, thank you.

Dan8267 says

It is not good for society to make housing expensive simply to protect the equity of people who overpaid because they were expecting housing prices to rise. Why should society at large favor prior house buyers over future ones?

Who said they overpaid? When? And rise by how much? It's pretty reasonable that housing should track inflation for example. It's obviously done far better than that, but that is an entirely different proposition to the one you are putting forward. And society didn't make housing expensive to protect people's equity. Much of the housing in the US isn't expensive. Certain areas are, but not for that reason.

Dan8267 says

What I written clearly does not suggest anything remotely like that. Perhaps you are allowing your political leanings to prevent you from understanding what I wrote. Most Americans today assume that if a person isn't on their team, they must play for the one and only other team. But in reality, there are no teams, just ideas.

You said maintenance and taxes for the rent, did you not? What part of that am I not comprehending? How does that not create far more uniformity around the country?

Dan8267 says

Not only is this a baseless assertion, but given your faulty assumption, it is clearly wrong.

And again, why? Maintenance + taxes. Explain how you differentiate between a house in the middle of the US and one in Manhattan.

102   Dan8267   2016 Sep 6, 5:34pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Rashomon says

Misplaced arrogance is not a good trait.

You are confusing a sense of humor with arrogance. That's your defect, not mine.

Rashomon says

That's your response? Seriously? The financial repercussions of your plan are obvious, but apparently not to you.

If they are obvious then it should be trivial for you to support your assertions with evidence.

Rashomon says

My reading comprehension skills are just fine, thank you.

Clearly not if you think I was proposing that all rents across the nation would be identical, that an apartment in Smallville, KA would cost the same as one in New York City.

Again, this was the statement you made about my writings. Are your admitting that your were in err?

Rashomon says

You said maintenance and taxes for the rent, did you not? What part of that am I not comprehending? How does that not create far more uniformity around the country?

Both maintenance costs and taxes will vary tremendously from location to location. Taxes will vary due to government spending differences and population differences. Maintenance costs will vary because of materials and, more significantly, labor costs.

Rashomon says

And again, why? Maintenance + taxes. Explain how you differentiate between a house in the middle of the US and one in Manhattan.

By the bills for maintenance. Do you really think that writing an accounting system in software is difficult? We only have thousands of person years of experience writing accounting systems. I think we can implement one.

103   Rashomon   2016 Sep 6, 6:14pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Rashomon says

Misplaced arrogance is not a good trait.

You are confusing a sense of humor with arrogance. That's your defect, not mine.

That is what you take for humor?

Dan8267 says

If they are obvious then it should be trivial for you to support your assertions with evidence.

You are arguing to put millions of houses hugely underwater. You will create the conditions for massive defaults and consequential collapse of the financial market. You want to create a government run rental system with rents vastly below the current levels. You want to take properties off landlords at your induced collapsed market values, etc. etc. I think you can figure out the consequences.

Dan8267 says

Clearly not if you think I was proposing that all rents across the nation would be identical, that an apartment in Smallville, KA would cost the same as one in New York City.

Again, this was the statement you made about my writings. Are your admitting that your were in err?

No, because as with all of your responses, you haven't addressed how maintenance and taxes would differentiate rental values in any meaningful way relevant to a particular market.

Dan8267 says

Both maintenance costs and taxes will vary tremendously from location to location. Taxes will vary due to government spending differences and population differences. Maintenance costs will vary because of materials and, more significantly, labor costs.

That makes zero sense. The maintenance costs could be far lower in the most expensive areas currently and vastly higher in run down areas like Detroit etc. What about the effects of weather on needed maintenance? Age of properties? And on and on.
How do you propose to determine taxes? What spending differences? Are you going to charge the highest taxes in the areas with the most need? Are you proposing a specific tax rate for every individual area? By block, by neighborhood, by city?

Dan8267 says

By the bills for maintenance. Do you really think that writing an accounting system in software is difficult? We only have thousands of person years of experience writing accounting systems. I think we can implement one.

So you propose to put every rental in the hands of the government and then have them calculate all future maintenance costs for the life of every single property in order to come up with a rental value in advance that covers said maintenance costs and presumably part of the future price of replacing said rental, updating appliances, replacing carpets, etc. etc., Presumably, the run down shacks in the poorest neighborhoods would have some of the highest projected maintenance charges... And then they will need to factor in all the distinct tax rates that you seem to be proposing. That is what you are proposing, is it?

104   bob2356   2016 Sep 6, 6:22pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Rashomon says

Bob raised some valid points that you haven't addressed.

Present them in a coherent fashion in contrast his Bob's trolling and I'll gladly address them.

Simple questions aren't trolling, except of course when you can't answer. Let's try again. What experience are you basing your statement that military housing has worked well for the uniformed members of the armed services. That is about as coherent as it's going to get. We will all be waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

Dan8267 says

It all depends on how it's implemented. Just as one can say "government rentals failed here and here, therefore all government rentals must fail", one can easily replace the word "government" with "human" and reach the same exact conclusion for all rentals by human beings. This is called a hasty generalization. It's a fallacy.

If you don't like the idea of a politician controlling rent, well, that's not my idea. The entire rental management, setting rents and issuing the leases, can be automated. Government does not mean politicians and bureaucrats. It can mean computers. If we can automate banking, and we've done that extensively, we can automate housing rentals.

Too funny. Who will write the laws that make it possible to buy and program the computers? Who will write the laws specifying what the programs will do. Who will write the laws changing the tax structure, not to mention the constitution? That will most defiantly mean politicians and bureaucrats.

You obviously don't understand automation of banking. Transactions have been automated. Not management. No one is making retail loans or contracts on an automated basis. That is what rents are, retail transactions.

The only fallacy on this thread is your (non) understanding of government.

105   bob2356   2016 Sep 6, 6:29pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Rashomon says

You are arguing to put millions of houses hugely underwater. You will create the conditions for massive defaults and consequential collapse of the financial market. You want to create a government run rental system with rents vastly below the current levels. You want to take properties off landlords at your induced collapsed market values, etc. etc. I think you can figure out the consequences.

No he can't, that's the problem. The collapse in values and the loss of trillions of dollars in homeowners equity apparently doesn't enter into the utopian world of Dan. People who have worked their whole life to pay off their house planning to use the equity to live in retirement can just die quietly and quickly in Dan's world. But then again Dan doesn't own a house, he owns stocks. I don't see any objection from Dan to rent seeking in stock values or Dan's call for collapsing the stock market. I wonder why?

In 3,2,1 we will hear that is is trolling to call Dan the hypocrite he is.

106   Dan8267   2016 Sep 6, 6:40pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Rashomon says

That is what you take for humor?

If you don't appreciate the humor, that's your loss, not mine.

Rashomon says

You are arguing to put millions of houses hugely underwater. You will create the conditions for massive defaults and consequential collapse of the financial market.

The banks knew how much the houses were really worth. If they overlent, that's the risk of capitalism.

We should not compound problems simply because greedy banks and greedy speculators decided to buy on leverage. We, as a society, owe nothing to those people.

If the bank losses are too much, then clawback payments from former sellers, make it illegal to default on a mortgage like you can't on a student loan, and/or break up the banks and cease their assets. When the bankers themselves are penniless then you can complain.

In any case, plummeting real estate prices would be a great thing. Home ownership rates would skyrocket. People would become invested in their communities. Crime would decrease. Nuisance derelict properties and crack houses would be a thing of the past.

Rashomon says

No, because as with all of your responses, you haven't addressed how maintenance and taxes would differentiate rental values.

Yes I have. Again, your reading comprehension needs work.

Dan8267 says

Both maintenance costs and taxes will vary tremendously from location to location. Taxes will vary due to government spending differences and population differences. Maintenance costs will vary because of materials and, more significantly, labor costs.

Rashomon says

Dan8267 says

Both maintenance costs and taxes will vary tremendously from location to location. Taxes will vary due to government spending differences and population differences. Maintenance costs will vary because of materials and, more significantly, labor costs.

That makes zero sense. The maintenance costs could be far lower in the most expensive areas currently and vastly higher in run down areas like Detroit etc.

You say what I stated makes no sense, and then you proceed to give an example of why what I said is true. Contradict yourself much?

Rashomon says

What about the effects of weather on needed maintenance? Age of properties? And on and on.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Whatever the maintenance costs are, they get paid for by the rent using aggregation across the area to smooth out minor differences. The accounting does not change from the status quo. Right now landlords use your rent to pay for maintenance. Why do you think this suddenly becomes impossible if the city is your landlord? Your basically bitching that the status quo could not exist because it's too hard to manage properties.

Rashomon says

How do you propose to determine taxes?

Each unit of land (say 0.2 acres) constitutes a share. Your tax portion is the number of shares you own squared times the appraised value of all the land you own. For multi-unit properties like apartments, your land share is the total sq. ft. of the building's land area proportionally divided among the units plus the land area of the common area divided by the number of units.

Your actual taxes is the total government spending multiplied by your portion divided by the sum of all portions of all tax payers. Hence, your tax burden goes up with your land use and the value of the land you use. This discourages land hording while encouraging maximum development of the land since buildings are not taxed at all.

Furthermore, spending and taxation are always equal, so there is never a deficit or public debt. You get a tax bill that tells you exactly what your taxes are, how they were spent, and precisely how your land usage affects them. If you want lower taxes, you petition the government to spend less and/or you use less land. The less public resources you use, the less you are taxed. You want to consume a greater portion of the limited public resource of land than other people do, then you pay more in taxes for that use. It's socially just, sustainable, and promotes effeciency.

Rashomon says

hen have them calculate all future maintenance costs for the life of every single property in order to come up with a rental value in advance that covers said maintenance costs and presumably part of the future price of replacing said rental, updating appliances, replacing carpets, etc.

Honey, property management is a commodity. You can even outsource it. It's not rocket science. Furthermore, standardizing property management, which is exactly what property management companies do and I don't hear you complaining about them, just makes management cheaper and more efficient.

Man, you would never be able to run a business with your negative attitude and inability to image that there are solutions to problems that have been solved a long time ago. Everything you have complained about are problems that exist and have been solved under the current system. These solutions don't magically disappear if you socialize housing. Oh no, I used the word socialize. Witch! Burn the witch!

This is why I have zero respect for the proponents of capitalism. They don't care at all about rational arguments. Economics is a religion to them and contradicting dogma cannot be tolerated. Are you even open to the possibility that there might exist an economic model that is better than capitalism? If not, why should I value your opinion?

107   Dan8267   2016 Sep 6, 6:50pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

bob2356 says

But then again Dan doesn't own a house, he owns stocks. I don't see any objection from Dan to rent seeking in stock values or Dan's call for collapsing the stock market. I wonder why?

In 3,2,1 we will hear that is is trolling to call Dan the hypocrite he is.

I own a car, but I'm for a carbon tax. I have no kids, but I am for socializing the cost of education. I am white man, but I'm for equality under the law for all races and for women. I am straight, but I support marriage equality. I don't own a house yet, because I make out financially better by renting under the current market. However, I have two siblings who do own houses and I care about their financial well-being more than my own.

To call me a hypocrite is nonsensical bullshit. I have justified everything I proposed and did so without invoking any personal reasons. Furthermore, the only reason I would financially gain from my system is that the vast majority of people would financially gain from it. There are orders of magnitude more future buyers of houses than there are current owners of houses, thus making housing affordable is in the best interest of society. Additionally there is the virtuous cycle of productivity and consumption that is created by not diminishing people's disposable income with high rents and mortgages.

I frequently propose changes that are not in my own interest because they are in society's interests. So, yes, to call me a hypocrite is childish trolling, especially when I am offering you the chance to have a mature, adult conversation about economics and you are failing like Janet Jackson's wardrobe. It's really sad that you cannot muster enough emotional maturity to even have an adult conversation. You are reason I am OK with paying for free contraception for everyone. Had your dad only used a condom, I would have gotten my money's worth.

108   Rashomon   2016 Sep 6, 7:05pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

The banks knew how much the houses were really worth. If they overlent, that's the risk of capitalism.

We should not compound problems simply because greedy banks and greedy speculators decided to buy on leverage. We, as a society, owe nothing to those people.

? Housing is pretty reasonable across most of the US. Banks lent on the current market value. You are proposing to tip the system on its head and then blame the banks for a new system that they knew nothing about.
Dan8267 says

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Whatever the maintenance costs are, they get paid for by the rent using aggregation across the area to smooth out minor differences.

Err, because it's very likely that the highest maintenance costs will be incurred in the poorest areas... That isn't addressing the issue of problem housing markets in limited areas.

Dan8267 says

Each unit of land (say 0.2 acres) constitutes a share. Your tax portion is the number of shares you own squared times the appraised value of all the land you own. For multi-unit properties like apartments, your land share is the total sq. ft. of the building's land area proportionally divided among the units plus the land area of the common area divided by the number of units.

Your actual taxes is the total government spending multiplied by your portion divided by the sum of all portions of all tax payers. Hence, your tax burden goes up with your land use and the value of the land you use. This discourages land hording while encouraging maximum development of the land since buildings are not taxed at all.

That proposal doesn't address the current problems with the housing market. It actually tallies with my point that you seemed to be arguing for uniform rentals across the country. That system coupled with your proposed maintenance costs would make the rental differences between Detroit and San Francisco what exactly?

Dan8267 says

Honey, property management is a commodity. You can even outsource it. It's not rocket science. Furthermore, standardizing property management, which is exactly what property management companies do and I don't hear you complaining about them, just makes management cheaper and more efficient.

a. I'm not your honey.
b. Property managers manage properties strangely enough. What has that got to do with rents?

Dan8267 says

Man, you would never be able to run a business with your negative attitude and inability to image that there are solutions to problems that have been solved a long time ago. Everything you have complained about are problems that exist and have been solved under the current system. These solutions don't magically disappear if you socialize housing. Oh no, I used the word socialize. Witch! Burn the witch!

Ha. What are you blathering about? If something has been solved a long time ago, then why do you need a solution? Everything I 'complain' about has not been solved by the current system (presumably meaning your idea). Your plan simply makes no sense.

109   Dan8267   2016 Sep 6, 8:15pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Ironman says

Folks, you can't make this shit up.

What you can't make up is how much time you obsess over following people who have you on ignore.

And insulting trolls is fair play. I gave Bob and you plenty of chances to talk with us grown ups. If you are going to act like children, I'll treat you as such.

Rashomon says

Housing is pretty reasonable

Your opinion does not negate what I said.

Rashomon says

Err, because it's very likely that the highest maintenance costs will be incurred in the poorest areas...

Whether or not that is true is irrelevant. The bottom line is that the economies of scale and the lack of profit taking under my system would make rents much cheaper, likely by an order of magnitude, everywhere including poor areas. The poor would be far better off in my system.

Rashomon says

That proposal doesn't address the current problems with the housing market.

Yes it does. It reduces artificial demand and vacant housing, freeing resources for productive use.

Rashomon says

It actually tallies with my point that you seemed to be arguing for uniform rentals across the country.

Again, you are not comprehending what I wrote. I am clearly not arguing for uniform rents, but simply rents that don't pad themselves with profit taking.

Rashomon says

That system coupled with your proposed maintenance costs would make the rental differences between Detroit and San Francisco what exactly?

It is irrelevant. It's damn improbably they will identical, but the savings in San Francisco will be much larger since there is currently more waste and profit taking there. However, rents in Detroit would go down, not up, so Detroit renters and home owners do not lose by making this change. They may not benefit as much as San Francisco residents, but they don't lose anything.

There is no down side. The money saved in both cities will allow residents a higher quality of life and the ability to save enough to buy for themselves. It would also boost the local economies by given the residents more disposable income to spend.

Rashomon says

I'm not your honey.

I was being condescending. I do that when I don't get a warm fuzzy that the other person understands even simple things. Demonstrate higher comprehension and I'll be less condescending.

Oh my god, are you kidding me? What are you using for security down there, a Trash-80? Guys, it's called "encryption." This is too easy; I'd let you off the hook, but stupidity always brings out the asshole in me...

―Mitnick

Rashomon says

Property managers manage properties strangely enough. What has that got to do with rents?

I brought it up because you were attempting to make the case that it is impossible to determine long-term maintenance costs. This is not true.

Rashomon says

If something has been solved a long time ago, then why do you need a solution?

I don't need a solution to the problems you are postulating. They have already been solved. My proposal solves other problems regarding the wasteful nature of the current for-profit housing system.

Housing is infrastructure. Capitalism doesn't do infrastructure well. And certainly capitalism sucks at allocating public resources like land. Land, air, and the oceans should be treated as public property. They were created by nature, not man.

110   Dan8267   2016 Sep 7, 8:06am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

More evidence that my plan is good the economy. Wasting land costs the average American worker $5000/yr in lost wages. $500 billion in lost GDP in five cities alone. Oh, and that's just the immediate impact. The long-term impact grows exponentially.

https://patrick.net/Why+a+severe+housing+shortage+means+reduced+wages+for+workers

111   Rashomon   2016 Sep 7, 8:47am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

I was being condescending.

You don't say.

Dan8267 says

I do that when I don't get a warm fuzzy that the other person understands even simple things. Demonstrate higher comprehension and I'll be less condescending.

No, you do that because you appear to be an arrogant arsehole with a vastly over-inflated sense of your own importance and intellect.

Your idea has no more veracity than the bloviating of a 14 year-old who has just read Das Kapital. It is utterly divorced from the reality of the economic system that the country operates in. Seriously, any idiot with zero economic knowledge could posit a plan for reducing the cost of rentals. The trick is to do it so it works within the current economic system, which you so singularly fail to do.

I don't know what it is that blinds you from seeing the consequences of your plan on the economy as a whole, but what you are saying wouldn't make poor people better off. It would send them out on the streets homeless and jobless following total economic melt down both here and worldwide.

Dan8267 says

I don't need a solution to the problems you are postulating. They have already been solved. My proposal solves other problems regarding the wasteful nature of the current for-profit housing system.

No, it doesn't. It creates a system that collapses rental prices nationwide, resulting in, from what you argue, rental prices that could quite easily be comparable or higher in Detroit than San Francisco (your laughable maintenance + taxes 'plan'). I'm curious what you actually think that would do to the housing market and the economy as a whole on implementation of said plan. Actually, I'm not curious. At this point I couldn't care less what spiel you come up with.

112   Dan8267   2016 Sep 7, 9:10am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

At this point all you are doing is contradicting and thus adding nothing to the conversation. I have no desire to get into an infinite loop of "ah ha, na ah" with you.

113   Strategist   2016 Sep 7, 9:19am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Rashomon says

Dan8267 says

I don't need a solution to the problems you are postulating. They have already been solved. My proposal solves other problems regarding the wasteful nature of the current for-profit housing system.

No, it doesn't. It creates a system that collapses rental prices nationwide, resulting in, from what you argue, rental prices that could quite easily be comparable or higher in Detroit than San Francisco (your laughable maintenance + taxes 'plan'). I'm curious what you actually think that would do to the housing market and the economy as a whole on implementation of said plan. Actually, I'm not curious. At this point I couldn't care less what spiel you come up with.

Go easy on Dan, he is not very learned. Even i'm beginning to feel sorry for him.

114   Rashomon   2016 Sep 7, 9:20am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

At this point all you are doing is contradicting and thus adding nothing to the conversation.

Nothing needs to be added to the 'conversation' about your 'plan.' It's clear what the wider consequences of it would be. You have just chosen to ignore that reality.

115   Dan8267   2016 Sep 7, 10:31am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Merely making an assertion does not make the assertion true. The only people in this thread who have objected to my plan are known trolls and fools. I'll take that as a positive.

116   bob2356   2016 Sep 7, 11:21am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

It's really sad that you cannot muster enough emotional maturity to even have an adult conversation. Y

It's really said you can't muster enough emotional maturity to answer a couple simple questions and claim than anyone who asks anything you don't want to answer is a troll. You and indigenous get the award for the most bloviating without actually saying anything.

Dan8267 says

If the bank losses are too much, then clawback payments from former sellers, make it illegal to default on a mortgage like you can't on a student loan, and/or break up the banks and cease their assets. When the bankers themselves are penniless then you can complain.

You have provided zero details of how your "plan" could be implemented or work in the real world. You don't even understand that real people have real equity in their homes. The "banks" will only lose what isn't paid off yet. What about people with no mortgage who are looking to sell to finance retirement (second time asked, I'm sure someone with dans alleged emotional maturity will ignore it again). Losing a huge chunk of their lifetime savings is good for their financial well-being how exactly (another question that will be ignored ala indiginous)? Talk about a total economic illiterate. Amazing.

Dan8267 says

However, I have two siblings who do own houses and I care about their financial well-being more than my own.

Since you are not being a hypocrite, how about having you alleged house owning "siblings" post how they support losing all the equity they have built up under your plan for the greater good of mankind? Care to try to explain how losing whatever equity they have built up in their homes is good for their financial well-being. Is that like george bush saying "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system"

117   bob2356   2016 Sep 7, 11:22am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

Merely making an assertion does not make the assertion true.

Just like the assertions of your "plan". Thanks for clearing that up.

118   Dan8267   2016 Sep 7, 11:33am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

bob2356 says

It's really said you can't muster enough emotional maturity to answer a couple simple questions and claim than anyone who asks anything you don't want to answer is a troll.

I've answered all questions in this thread. You're just being a jackass, so screw you.

119   Rashomon   2016 Sep 7, 12:20pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Ho, ho, ho. And Dan puts me on ignore because he can't take someone pointing out the obvious problems with his plan. What an immensely childish reaction. The two people that have me on ignore are you and Ironman. Speaks volumes.

120   Dan8267   2016 Sep 7, 12:35pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

If you don't want to be put on ignored, then don't act like a troll. You're account is a mere three weeks old and you have already lost respect. That's on you. I don't care to have you pollute any of my threads, and I have no intention of wasting more time on you.

121   Rashomon   2016 Sep 7, 12:38pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Lost respect from you and Ironman? I'm devastated. I haven't trolled you. You were the one being arrogant and patronizing, so stop running off in a huff just because someone pulls you up about what you post. And hey, why are you still reading my comments if you put me on ignore? Just ridiculous.

And by the way, I've been around for a while and actually find plenty of your posts interesting, but this kind of reaction and the huge amount of time you waste with your childish arguments with Ironman don't actually reflect particularly well on you and your level of maturity.

122   Rashomon   2016 Sep 7, 1:49pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Then keep me on ignore, and if that is your basis for ignoring people, then you should start with ignoring yourself. You post the same responses over and over and over again. Do you never get bored with what you are doing? Clearly you're boring a lot of other people on here, so hey I'll just be one more to put you on ignore and save you the bother of attempting to troll yet another member of this forum.

« First     « Previous     Comments 83-122 of 122     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home