Prev: McDonald's Happy Hour Rip-Offs
Next: THINK DIFFERENT: Apple clams down on code tools.
From: Gordon Burditt on 24 Apr 2010 01:13
>> > For starters, outlaw real estate speculation, at least the out of
>control kind.
>>
>> Impossible to define, and so impossible to outlaw, my lord, master of
>high renown(fixed)

Real estate speculation won't last long without a lot of use of
someone else's money. How about banking regulations that say banks
can't lend more on a house than the minimum amount it sold for in
the past 5 years? (exceptions allowed if the property has changed
from a vacant lot to a house with land). If someone really thinks
the property is worth a lot and has a big down payment to risk it,
they can buy it at an inflated price at largely their own risk.
Wage slaves probably won't be able to afford a house with a rapidly
inflating price in the first place, so they wouldn't end up upside-down
on a huge mortgage and on the edge of bankruptcy. Perhaps the
prices wouldn't inflate so much if the suckers you want to sell to
can't afford such high prices.

The sales price history for a piece of property is public information
(at least according to local realtors and the local property appraisal
folks). The Federal government exerts a lot of control over what
mortgages can look like to be acceptable to government agencies
like Fannie MAE.

You don't have to outlaw private investment. If the private investors
go broke, it won't endanger the banking system.


From: Rod Speed on 24 Apr 2010 05:26
Gordon Burditt wrote

>>>> For starters, outlaw real estate speculation, at least the out of control kind.

>>> Impossible to define, and so impossible to outlaw, my lord, master of high renown(fixed)

> Real estate speculation won't last long without a lot of use of someone else's money.

Wrong. Plenty speculate with their own money.

> How about banking regulations that say banks can't lend more on
> a house than the minimum amount it sold for in the past 5 years?

MIndlessly silly. That would cripple the mortgage
market for those who just want somewhere to live.

> (exceptions allowed if the property has changed from a vacant lot to a house with land).

Not clear what you are saying there. Presumably that the
bank cant lend the amount that the house cost to build.

If so, that is even sillier.

> If someone really thinks the property is worth a lot
> and has a big down payment to risk it, they can
> buy it at an inflated price at largely their own risk.

> Wage slaves probably won't be able to afford a
> house with a rapidly inflating price in the first place,

Wrong. If that was so, the percentage of house ownership wouldnt have increased dramatically.

> so they wouldn't end up upside-down on a
> huge mortgage and on the edge of bankruptcy.

Being upside down has no relevance what so ever to bankruptcy.

> Perhaps the prices wouldn't inflate so much if the
> suckers you want to sell to can't afford such high prices.

Yes, if you beat the loan market to death, that would certainly produce
an effect on the price of houses. Pity about those who need a house.

> The sales price history for a piece of property is public information (at
> least according to local realtors and the local property appraisal folks).

Not for new property built on vacant land or with the old house demolished.

> The Federal government exerts a lot of control over what mortgages
> can look like to be acceptable to government agencies like Fannie MAE.

And real estate bubbles happen anyway.

> You don't have to outlaw private investment. If the private
> investors go broke, it won't endanger the banking system.

But that will have a significant effect on the housing industry.


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: McDonald's Happy Hour Rip-Offs
Next: THINK DIFFERENT: Apple clams down on code tools.