Unless you’re arguing against the ownership of personal property, home’s are an asset to the homeowner.
The fact that they are treated as such is quite literally the cause of the ongoing housing affordability crisis, and by extension the homelessness crisis.
Homes as investment vehicles are a symptom, but not the cause. Make homes free of charge, and land itself is still a limited resource.
You cannot seriously be speaking in favour of it?
Regardless of either of our feelings about ownership/asset, the author is speaking in the context of the current reality where homes being personal property and that home owners should be happy about half their home values evaporating. That’s pure batshit crazy cope.
Regardless of either of our feelings about ownership/asset, the author is speaking in the context of the current reality where homes being personal property and that home owners should be happy about half their home values evaporating. That’s pure batshit crazy cope.
Right. So what’s your preferred solution to the problem, then?
Either homes can be investment vehicles and their value can be protected by policy, or homes can be attainable to everyone without serious economic hardship. It is not possible to have both. If we want the latter, we have to transition in some way from the homes having inflated values to deflated values.
Right. So what’s your preferred solution to the problem, then?
That is a legitimate policy question for discussion, and I appreciate thats a topic you’re interested in diving into, but I’ll pass today. I’m talking on the topic from the OP post.
Unless you’re arguing against the ownership of personal property, home’s are an asset to the homeowner.
Homes as investment vehicles are a symptom, but not the cause. Make homes free of charge, and land itself is still a limited resource.
Regardless of either of our feelings about ownership/asset, the author is speaking in the context of the current reality where homes being personal property and that home owners should be happy about half their home values evaporating. That’s pure batshit crazy cope.
Right. So what’s your preferred solution to the problem, then?
Either homes can be investment vehicles and their value can be protected by policy, or homes can be attainable to everyone without serious economic hardship. It is not possible to have both. If we want the latter, we have to transition in some way from the homes having inflated values to deflated values.
That is a legitimate policy question for discussion, and I appreciate thats a topic you’re interested in diving into, but I’ll pass today. I’m talking on the topic from the OP post.