New Legislation Proposes to Take Wall Street Out of the Housing Market

Or more than half of the democrats that do Wall Street's bidding too.

"Corporations are people, my friend" --Mittington

I'll believe that when one is executed.

Yeah, but you can squeeze 285,000 corporations in one office building!

https://medium.com/knowledge-stew/how-one-address-in-delaware-is-home-to-285-000-companies-32d963a2b706

I read your comment carefully and still downvoted because its an incredibly dumb thing to say.

That's a really good point. I should be able to buy some people since it's a free market and it's just impossible to curb exploitation.

We don't have a free market. Wall Street gets bailouts, congress engages in insider trading, corporations collude to limit wages, and policies favor banks and corporations. Consequently, the last 50+ years have seen the decimation of the middle and working classes.

I read carefully, then un-downvoted so i could downvote you again

I was just saying that as I was about to send my 6-year old out to the corner store to go buy some cigarettes for me, since our free market hasn’t imposed any restrictions on that transaction.

Or if you look at the housing market specifically, in my area at least, I can’t buy a second home in the same area as an individual. I can buy investment properties that I’d need to rent out, but I’m forbidden from owning a second residence for myself.

State, Local, and Federal lawmakers are constantly proactively prohibiting bad scenarios. And in this case, it wouldn’t even be proactive, it’s literally something that’s going on right now that needs corrected.

Homes are for people.

A true Libertarian utopia.

If allowing ordinary people to be priced out of owning homes is your idea of a free market, then fuck the free market.

Gods yes. We can't predict every sort of bad behavior in the market, only react. Bunch of arm-chair quarterbacks in here, "We should have seen this coming!" Watch 10 people tell me exactly how we could have.

And on this issue, it's high time to react. Doubt it will happen. :(

Fuck the free market. Fuck capitalism. Fuck you, too.

It's not a free market... that's not an actual thing that can ever exist. It's a state where the markets are in a perfect, frictionless state, where barriers of entry are non-existent and everyone has equal access to trade on the market... Ignoring petty things like needing to actually source things

It is, in fact, both reasonable and desirable for the government to proactively watch and interfere in the markets before they enter a failure scenario, that's their job in the market.

It's often willfully misunderstood, but what you're describing is a half step from lasse faire capitalism. Which is the idea that a "free market" is a stable state, and we just need to let it settle long enough without interference. But that's literally psuedoscience...

That's how Brexit happened in the UK.

I agree about not trusting the politicians, but not sure I trust the general public much more unfortunately.

I non-sarcastically love your optimism. But part of me really believes that 50% of the country votes however their church tells them to. So I'm not sure it'd be better.

I would be very careful with that. US should try having a more representative government first.

So long as you don't like a functioning economy, sure.

You'd get people voting for all the projects and none of the budget.

Stupid take. Nobody thinks rote popularity contest is a good idea. There's too much to know. Too much to regulate. Have to employ experts.

If it were left to popular vote, do you think we would have the Exclusionary Rule? A ban on cruel and unusual punishment? A right to remain silent? Any criminal rights?

Any minority rights at all?

Direct voting is the future.

We have frequent ballot measures in California and as a voter I do a lot of work to understand those ballot measures that many do not have the time or the ability to do. California ballots may have 5-10 questions on them, and these things already take a long time to properly research and understand...Can you imagine the complexity when you're talking about national issues and especially thinking of running the entire government that way?

It's a full-time job. There's no way it's scalable to run a country this large with this many competing interests using direct voting. You'd spend your whole life voting on or researching on voting on things.

Ultimately, you'd wind up with industry writing all of the law proposals and a misrepresented version of those coming across some kind of voting device. We'd still continue our slow slide into some sort of industrial feudalism, just without the politicians to blame for it.

I think proportional representation and ranked choice voting are both better ideas.

It will be a campaign issue and then nothing will be done about it. Fingers will be pointed.

can’t wait to see conservatives line up in droves to defend wall street buying houses in a few months time

Everyone will talk about it, nobody will do anything to improve the situation.

Once you reach the ranks of the Senate, you have more financial interest in the future of your REIT-heavy investment portfolio than the price any of your constituents are paying for housing. Hell, more than a few Senators come straight from the halls of Wall Street themselves. That's how they have the kind of surplus cash to run for office to begin with.

Gun regs have better odds, as high real estate prices don't put Congresscritters in the hospital.

Liberals: "We're teetering on the brink of tyranny, democracy may cease to exist after 2024."

Also liberals: "Please remove our 2A rights while fascists in red states expand their own."

Our current electoral system is inherently biased against 3rd parties. We need to switch to approval/STAR voting to make 3rd parties viable.

Please, tell me you're a child who knows nothing about the US electoral system without telling me. People like you got us Trump

Too much of a baby to read and understand the spoiler effect that comes with FPTP? Too impatient and short-sighted to push for election reform (RCV or approval voting) and just want some low effort immediate option that requires nothing more than casting a vote? Child. Democracies require effort to survive.

Yes it would be better. Monopolies are bad. Near monopolies are bad. The more market power a company gains the more they can charge for no reason at all except "fuck you pay me".

Did you just scoff at the idea of competition improving a market?

The solution is to make hoarding rental properties an unattractive investment. Put an escalating tax on owning multiple residences. If the 5th property is at 40% tax every year it's no longer a money maker in a competitive market. Put the money towards tax rebates for single mortgage interest. Now you have buyers back in the market and landlords looking to sell.

There WOULD be more suburbs to develop if we were allowed to work remotely. I would gladly move to the developing suburb of bumfuck-nowheresville if I could go there and keep my job, but I have to stay within a reasonable commuting distance of the nearest metropolis.

Monopolies are bad.

So preying on the victims of the growing wealth innequality and income gap. That will surely accelerate the decline of civilization.

Well said, people think that making certain companies go poof will suddenly resolve issues for a long time, without thinking about resource availability, the circumstances which led to the sutuation and the customers who enable them.

Achievement unlocked: socialism

Though I absolutely don't mind!

Permanently Deleted

It's social democracy. It's a slight socialism under a capitalist umbrella where social services are untouched by capitalism. All of Europe operates this way.

It's a fair question. The first universal basic income experiments have just begun in the last few years. Based on this article there's been a little success at least.
https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/multiple-countries-have-tested-universal-basic-income-and-it-works

I think we're only recently getting to a level of technology that we need less human workforce and can still prosper when inevitably some choose not to work.

Permanently Deleted

That sounds like the perfect opportunity to work in property management because the owners will be so diffuse that you could be very lazy and they would be none the wiser

0 souls then

Nancy Pelosi's husband is literally one of these real estate ghouls.

Eh maybe, I can see the attack ads now though.

Special interests in Washington want to destroy the value of your home by placing strict regulations on home ownership! Government beurocrat fat cats wants to put themselves in charge of who can and can't buy a home! Don't let the big wigs in Washington destroy your homes value and strangle your children's future and their inheritance! Vote no on proposition 1! This ad paid for by free homes for all real Americans (a Koch industries subsidiary).

Never underestimate peoples ability to vote against their own interest when partisanship get involved.

How exactly does Mr. Smith propose a conversation begin with a bunch of seditious asswipes???

Well, yeah. That's how politics work. Or should.

Get the issue in front of the people, get them talking. Like we are now. Give one side a chance to say, "See what we tried and got shot down!" You gotta start somewhere.

This is the first I've heard of such an initiative and I'm all in.

I wonder which side doesn’t want it to pass /s

Fun fact: there is always a divided congress because the ruling class just adjusts its spending on elections to ensure nothing ever gets done in our favor.

As soon as we start voting more/for better candidates, they start spending more. They haven't even scratched the surface of how much they can spend to control the government; they don't need to yet.

As the disparity in wealth continues to grow, they'll just have even more money to ensure their grip for generations.

I'm sure they'll have plenty of democrats helping, too.

A significant problem isn't just the lack of housing, it's the lack of affordable housing. Builders keep building single family homes in spread out suburbs which is problematic in its own way. But not everyone could afford those homes regardless of whether they are buying or renting.

Investors owning single family homes is a big problem, the bigger problem is exacerbated but not explicitly caused by that. Affordable housing simply isn't available in places where it's needed. That's why people say we need more homes.

A lack of housing is very explicitly our problem. Houses that are empty are not unowned.

Until housing is no longer seen as an investment, which can only happen if we are allowed to build sufficient housing, housing will continue to go up in value, and thus more people will invest

Anyone who sees their home as their "nest egg" is part of the problem.

Because they want to build more to make more money.

Please explain how this is a bad thing? This is rental org explicitly stating that the lack of supply is hurting their growth and profit.

That means they believe that the supply/demand curve is so out of whack that cheaper housing will make them more money.

This is absolutely and 100% a win-win.

The trade organization is arguing for investment into their marke

This is the only solution to the housing crisis. We have too little housing. We need more.

The situation is not caused by a lack of number of houses

This is not supported by math.

There should be something like a land value tax that pushes for more efficient use of land

Stop, stop - I can only get so erect! I'd absolutely love to see more of a push for LVTs, but we both know that's our fantasy and not a serious discussion in the near term.

Well, Republicans don't really have that strong of a majority in the House, given that they gave Santos the boot, and McCarthy is getting set to retire after losing the Speakership. It's also possible that by the time this makes it to the floor, McConnell may finally shuffle off this mortal coil (fingers crossed).