Debt As A Weapon

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



There has to be government regulation of capitalism. You can't just exclude government from the dynamic. That results in vulture capitalism.

There are two ways to make home ownership more affordable. You can try to affect prices or you can help people have more wealth.

Simply letting capitalism run wild leads to extreme wealth inequality, a stagnated economy, and great poverty at the low end. We are supposed to use government to promote the general welfare, not the top end welfare.

You have your regulation of the housing market right now. What do you think drives up the price and prevents development? You're getting what you want. The results are these regulations benefit those with money and those who already own their home.

Go read any investment packages on (commercial) properties in places like San Francisco, Boston or Seattle. Part of their pitch for the investment is that these areas are "supply constrained markets". Do you know what that means? It means the gov't (or voters) have put limits on the amount that can be built. Therefore, you as the potential owner have less competition in the market which helps keep your prices higher.

You want more regulation? There you go. You're seeing it in action.

 

[Flash]

You are completely wrong. I retired with 10 million in the bank. That cheap shot is beneath you. You're better than that. Very disappointed you decided to take the low road ad hom attack instead of addressing the issue. Do better.

According to PoliTalker that would make you one of the oppressors waging class warfare against the poor and middle class.

 

[Nordberg]

You have your regulation of the housing market right now. What do you think drives up the price and prevents development? You're getting what you want. The results are these regulations benefit those with money and those who already own their home.

Go read any investment packages on (commercial) properties in places like San Francisco, Boston or Seattle. Part of their pitch for the investment is that these areas are "supply constrained markets". Do you know what that means? It means the gov't (or voters) have put limits on the amount that can be built. Therefore, you as the potential owner have less competition in the market which helps keep your prices higher.

You want more regulation? There you go. You're seeing it in action.

Those are rich people regulations. The wealthy forced regs limiting construction long ago. They used zoning laws to prohibit the construction of particularly smaller and multiple apartment constructions. When the influx of tech came in the people who came along blew up housing costs. The regs also limited apartments to 4 stories.

 

[cawacko]

Those are rich people regulations. The wealthy forced regs limiting construction long ago. They used zoning laws to prohibit the construction of particularly smaller and multiple apartment constructions. When the influx of tech came in the people who came along blew up housing costs. The regs also limited apartments to 4 stories.

You’re not wrong about the regulations benefitting the rich. The question is why does it get so much support from progressive politicians?

There are two phrases we hear most. The first is the need to maintain “neighborhood character”. That’s code for don’t build anymore around where I live. ESPECIALLY anything that isn’t single family.

The other is any market rate housing being built is simply profits for greedy developers. In this mindset all housing should be built by the gov’t, or maybe non profits. The fact that the gov’t couldn’t begin to come close to being able to afford to build anywhere near the amount of housing needed is not relevant.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

You have your regulation of the housing market right now. What do you think drives up the price and prevents development? You're getting what you want. The results are these regulations benefit those with money and those who already own their home.

Go read any investment packages on (commercial) properties in places like San Francisco, Boston or Seattle. Part of their pitch for the investment is that these areas are "supply constrained markets". Do you know what that means? It means the gov't (or voters) have put limits on the amount that can be built. Therefore, you as the potential owner have less competition in the market which helps keep your prices higher.

You want more regulation? There you go. You're seeing it in action.

OK. Sounds like a complaint about the situation. Anybody can criticize. That is the fuel for ideas. Do you have any suggestions?

The way you're talking it sounds like you are proposing that there should be no regulations.

Do you really think dropping regulations is going to result in a decrease of housing prices?

Do you wish for these places to have no limits on the amount of building that occurs?

Just what should their density be?

What is the purpose of the existing regulations?

How can more units be constructed in a given area without tearing down existing units?

When older properties are demolished to make way for new construction, investors pay whatever they need to pay, and the new units usually cost more than what they replace.

I can't imagine the prices would come down.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

According to PoliTalker that would make you one of the oppressors waging class warfare against the poor and middle class.

That's the problem. Where is the line drawn? There is no breakpoint. It's a graduated scale. Most diversified portfolios are going to include investments in vehicles of oppression. As soon as an individual is above the point where they have invested wealth, if any of that is in stocks and funds, it is probably supporting some of the oppression.

We need to identify how great wealth oppresses lack of wealth, and try to reduce/eliminate the ways that occurs.

It is as much about the system as it is about any particular individuals.

We pick out those at the very top as examples, but we know that if those individuals were to change their own ways that others would replace them and the oppression would continue.

It's the SYSTEM we need to look at for ways to tweak it to promote the GENERAL welfare and prosperity.

We have to try to counter the ill effects of the power of wealth by using regulations we can create and modify for the good of all.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It appears the someone is weaponizing Trump's debts. LOL

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/575797-debt-for-trumps-business-estimated-at-13-billion-report
Debt for Trump's business estimated at $1.3 billion: report

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



OK. Sounds like a complaint about the situation. Anybody can criticize. That is the fuel for ideas. Do you have any suggestions?

The way you're talking it sounds like you are proposing that there should be no regulations.

Do you really think dropping regulations is going to result in a decrease of housing prices?

Do you wish for these places to have no limits on the amount of building that occurs?

Just what should their density be?

What is the purpose of the existing regulations?

How can more units be constructed in a given area without tearing down existing units?

When older properties are demolished to make way for new construction, investors pay whatever they need to pay, and the new units usually cost more than what they replace.

I can't imagine the prices would come down.

So you thank Nordberg's post saying housing regulations benefit the rich then complain about the removal of any regulation. There's no principle here other than this obsessive vague ideology over regulations which you can't square away when they benefit the rich at the expense of regular folks.

There are many topics I enjoy discussing but unfortunately must admit I'm not all that well versed in. That doesn't make me a bad person or mean that I can't talk about them but it's just reality.

That's you with housing. It's easy to say we should make housing affordable in the abstract but that means little when you have no clue, or even a modicum clue, of what that entails. The discussion goes nowhere without actual ideas other that regulation = good

 

[evince]

democrats are constantly fooled. they pushed for this primarily to "soak the rich". they co0ntinue to give the rich more power, thinking they will benefit. just dumb voters

This is fucking insane babble that contradicts its self


Twisted logic for twisted slow minds

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

So you thank Nordberg's post saying housing regulations benefit the rich then complain about the removal of any regulation. There's no principle here other than this obsessive vague ideology over regulations which you can't square away when they benefit the rich at the expense of regular folks.

There are many topics I enjoy discussing but unfortunately must admit I'm not all that well versed in. That doesn't make me a bad person or mean that I can't talk about them but it's just reality.

That's you with housing. It's easy to say we should make housing affordable in the abstract but that means little when you have no clue, or even a modicum clue, of what that entails. The discussion goes nowhere without actual ideas other that regulation = good

You must have missed the part where I said there are two ways to make housing more affordable.

1. Prices come down. (unlikely)

2. Wealth is better distributed so more people can afford the more preferable properties.

That's not opinion. That's an inescapable reality.

Now, let's look at your approach to this. You live in and relate to a place of finite available real estate. The land area is a fixed number. The number of people trying to live on that given amount of land space is increasing. It is not a fixed number. Therefore, prices are going to rise.

Blaming regulations or Democrats for this is the part I am not accepting.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Hello cawacko,



You must have missed the part where I said there are two ways to make housing more affordable.

1. prices come down.

2. Wealth is better distributed so more people can afford the more preferable properties.

That's not opinion. That's an inescapable reality.

Now, let's look at your approach to this. You like in and relate to a place of finite available real estate. The land area is a fixed number. The number of people trying to live on that given amount of land space is increasing. It is not a fixed number. Therefore, prices are going to rise.

Blaming regulations or Democrats for this is the part I am not accepting.

"prices come down" isnt a policy, fucko.

how, dummy?

 

[PoliTalker]

Increasing the allowed density of a well-desired fixed size buildable area almost always results in higher unit price per square foot. Look at New York, Chicago, Tampa, Miami, LA, Dallas, Houston.

People are going to have to take out very large mortgages to be able to afford such high pricing.

Few have the cash on hand to pay off the loan. They become shackled to their work with as strong a bond as the desire to do whatever it takes to stay in the job to keep the job-related health care. Many people will do anything they have to, in order to keep their jobs.

Debt is a weapon to force subservience to the super-rich class.

The underclass is thinking and knowing the truth: "We do what they say because they've got this debt over us."

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



You must have missed the part where I said there are two ways to make housing more affordable.

1. Prices come down. (unlikely)

2. Wealth is better distributed so more people can afford the more preferable properties.

That's not opinion. That's an inescapable reality.

Now, let's look at your approach to this. You like in and relate to a place of finite available real estate. The land area is a fixed number. The number of people trying to live on that given amount of land space is increasing. It is not a fixed number. Therefore, prices are going to rise.

Blaming regulations or Democrats for this is the part I am not accepting.

Woah. To each his own but I'm pretty sure you are just trolling now.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

Woah. To each his own but I'm pretty sure you are just trolling now.

Um, no. I thought we were comparing our two different approaches to rising real estate prices, which by the way, is something you brought up in a thread that is ultimately supposed to be about debt.

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



Um, no. I thought we were comparing our two different approaches to rising real estate prices, which by the way, is something you brought up in a thread that is ultimately supposed to be about debt.

You literally just thanked a post by Nordberg saying housing regulations benefit the rich then declared we shouldn't blame regulations for high prices. There's zero understanding of how markets work here. Absolutely none.

 

[cawacko]

"prices come down" isnt a policy, fucko.

how, dummy?

LOL. I guess the government can just declare "housing prices will be lowered" and it shall be done. (Because folks who own homes will be willing to sell them for half price out of the goodness of their hearts.)

 

[cawacko]

Home ownership isn't really the secret to wealth. Rather home ownership with a traditional mortgage acted as a savings plan. Every time one made their mortgage payment some of that money was going toward equity on the house. They didn't have to think about saving. It was built into the mortgage. Some of the new mortgage instruments no longer act as a savings plan. An interest only loan is a speculative instrument. You only make money if the value of the home increases.

Ultimately the secret to wealth is to save money. Either on your own in a some way where you don't have to think about it because it happens automatically. The real problem is the inability of so many people to save on their own. They don't have the financial education to understand how the financial system works. They buy into the consumerism fallacy where they want to live for today and end up living beyond their means. That is where debt becomes a weapon. Companies and the unscrupulous prey upon the financially naive. The plan to require an opt out on 401K plans would go a long way toward helping a lot of people build wealth. It's too complicated for many to think about it so they would just let that money be taken out of their check and they would never notice it in their day to day life.

What government should be doing is helping people become wealthy. Instead government often makes it difficult and enables those that would steal from those that are trying to get ahead. In the 1970's South Dakota had usury laws that restricted the interest that could be charged. They repealed that in the early 80's in order to attract all those credit card companies that could suddenly charge 20-25% interest if based in SD. While it may have brought a lot of low paying jobs to SD for debt collecting it ended up harming a lot of people across the country.

Ultimately debt is a tool for those that understand it but a weapon to be used against those that don't understand it. The problem is when the tool is used to harm others.

Curious if you ever read Rich Dad/Poor Dad because some of what you say is echoed. Poli (and some others) makes the claim home ownership is the way to wealth. Kiyosaki would 100% disagree with that. His whole premise was people shouldn't over leverage themselves on a home or become house poor. Many Americans believe they can max out of their mortgage as an investment. It's not the way to create wealth.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

You literally just thanked a post by Nordberg saying housing regulations benefit the rich then declared we shouldn't blame regulations for high prices. There's zero understanding of how markets work here. Absolutely none.

And this is all part of a vain attempt to falsely establish that if Republicans were in control of California, that you believe property prices there would be lower. Correct? Is that your position?

 

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

That's the problem. Where is the line drawn? There is no breakpoint. It's a graduated scale. Most diversified portfolios are going to include investments in vehicles of oppression. As soon as an individual is above the point where they have invested wealth, if any of that is in stocks and funds, it is probably supporting some of the oppression.

We need to identify how great wealth oppresses lack of wealth, and try to reduce/eliminate the ways that occurs.

It is as much about the system as it is about any particular individuals.

We pick out those at the very top as examples, but we know that if those individuals were to change their own ways that others would replace them and the oppression would continue.

It's the SYSTEM we need to look at for ways to tweak it to promote the GENERAL welfare and prosperity.

We have to try to counter the ill effects of the power of wealth by using regulations we can create and modify for the good of all.

I think you misrepresent the system entirely. There is no simplistic good guys v. bad guys with the bad guys being the wealthy. It is not true that most of them did not work for their money or make it honestly or that they inherited it. They may have gotten rich with a portfolio of socially conscious investments. Or, they may have gotten rich from stock of G. M., Ford, or other major industries in the U. S. that provide millions of good paying jobs for working class Americans.

There are no oligarchs or power elite in the U. S. Our system contains pluralistic power centers and corporations do not oppress any more people than government agencies.

This is the liberal version of the right's deep state, liberal media, labor union, election fraud, Capitol insurrection by Antifa and BLM, and George Soros, New World Order power elite oppressing America. Oh, and the new one is the great "Reset."

However they got rich does not mean it oppresses or takes money from the poor. I have a lot of family members who have economic hardships---all from poor decisions they made in their life and are still making. According to sociological studies very few Americans live below the poverty line who 1) graduated from high school; 2) delayed having a family until they finished school; 3) work full-time.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

Curious if you ever read Rich Dad/Poor Dad because some of what you say is echoed. Poli (and some others) makes the claim home ownership is the way to wealth. Kiyosaki would 100% disagree with that. His whole premise was people shouldn't over leverage themselves on a home or become house poor. Many Americans believe they can max out of their mortgage as an investment. It's not the way to create wealth.

No, have not read that one. Home ownership IS the number one way that most Americans build wealth. I did not believe that was in dispute. Agreed also that being over-leveraged or 'house broke' is a bad idea. This too frequently ends in failure to fulfill the mortgage, resulting in bankruptcy. It leaves too little room for unexpected expenses.