Search results

You're the person who posted libertarianism as the handmaiden to socialism, claiming repeated things about libertarianism that aren't actually true, and showed a lack of understanding of the NAP. Massive overpayment being timebased is a pretty easy deduction. BlackRock is a business which wants...

... Examples outside of just insults please? Again, you are the one with the overarching positive claim. It's up to you. You, a few pages ago: ... Followed by no evidence for any company/corporate lobbyist lobbying for more housing regulation. Oh, and this: With still no evidence that...

Anarcho capitalists understand economics, their mistake is psychology. The problem with AnCaps is warlords, who are economically speaking stupid (except for the mongols), but as a practical purpose not, as now they have power and you don't. Underestimating petty human desire for power over...

They very much are substitutes. Both serve as permanent housing, and the price for one affects the other. Rivalry has little to do with substitution, actually, as almost all physical goods are rivalrous, like apples. But apples and pears are still substitutes. Second, you then argue that some...

I get that, but people building houses doesn't harm this. It actually doesn't matter what price they bought the houses at, as once they leave the homebuying market, there will be a return to normalcy, with some friction because people still expect them to be buying. But the real reason it...

... That doesn't actually reduce the home market though. These weren't houses before, now they are. Increasing the availability of renting is a good thing, as it reduces home prices as it is a substitute product. Also, some people prefer to rent (hi). It's honestly much more convenient for me...

No, I'm saying it's not in the interest of almost any company to restrict housing, unless they are a well established small landlord (I'm sure there's some outliers, but I don't know of them). Big landlords want to expand, and build more, because they have excess capital, so while they could try...

Then cite those ones, not ones in the fed which aren't relevant to this discussion. As for getting people in local government, it's a different type of challenge as they'd need penetration in a bunch of different governments, and there's a lot less unelected positions in local government that...

Getting bailed out is wrong, yes. But first, I haven't seen evidence they are targeting any particular town (not neighborhood, town). And until I see that evidence, no, they aren't even a local demand shock, let alone a problem. But although this may hurt homeowners now, in aggregate it likely...

They got people in the wrong government though. The feds have little control over housing laws. They'd need local power to change those laws. I'm going to need a lot more evidence and significantly more money before I call this a problem.

No. The people who get housing zoning laws put into place usually aren't lobbyists, although that is everyone's (including mine) favorite beating horse. The people who are for housing zoning laws are almost always a combination of anti-gentrification activists (who are very local, so calling...

In order: so what? That's barely a fraction of a percent of US housing. It's a non issue. As for zoning laws, yes, but that's the zoning laws preventing people from getting housing, not the company. Without the company, it's still impossible to buy in those places. Billions is nowhere near...

That only works a little. The problem is liquidating those positions. You have to do it while the prices are artificially inflated, and make enough of a profit to cover the losses you made on purchase. Is it doable? Yes. But if so, a selloff must be imminent.

No, we need the opposite. The only reason there is a housing shortage in parts of America is that those parts have stupid godforsaken rules about new buildings, stopping housing from increasing. These are also very liberal places (see: NYC, LA, SF). Houston, which has next to no zoning laws...

They have nowhere near enough capital to get anywhere near a monopoly. If they were only buying in and around one city, maybe, but that's about it. This is just another story of a firm betting a lot on something.