patrick.net

Strategist says

would increase the supply of rentals making it cheaper to rent

the supply of housing isn't increasing and that's the core problem. Even Pure Land Georgism isnt' going to lower housing cost without more supply than demand.

back to your point, as long as vacancy is low all LLs are price takers, free to evict tenants for the next who can and will pay more for the leasehold tenancy on offer.

Bellingham Bill says

the supply of housing isn't increasing and that's the core problem.

You aren't aware that houses/condos are being built every single day? How is it a finite supply? Other than markets like CA or NY that are land or zoning restricted the supply is just fine. There is a very finite supply of people willing to have a tenant in their house. Even less willing to have a family live in their house. Nor are there that many people willing to share their life with their landlord.

Go sell your georgian idiocy some where else. Pie in the sky academic bullshit that has no relevance of any kind in the real world. Show one example anywhere on earth of georgism working. Land banks are for abandoned and tax foreclosed houses Again, show one place in the world where land banking is being used as you describe;

Anyone who wants to can do the work themselves and sell their house fsbo. It's very easy to do. No one is paying realtors at gunpoint. Again these are adults making their own choices that you seem to find not up to your standards. You being someone who has never stepped up to the plate and put any skin in the game.

You dodged the question. Where would you have lived until you could have afforded to buy if someone hadn't bought a condo and rented it to you? It appears you are a very willing participant in the system you are so anxious to condemn.

Bellingham Bill says

Strategist says

would increase the supply of rentals making it cheaper to rent

the supply of housing isn't increasing and that's the core problem. Even Pure Land Georgism isnt' going to lower housing cost without more supply than demand.

back to your point, as long as vacancy is low all LLs are price takers, free to evict tenants for the next who can and will pay more for the leasehold tenancy on offer.

I agree the supply isn't increasing, so why blame the landlords when they have nothing to do with increasing the supply of new construction.
As long as vacancies are low, it's the tenants who are price takers not the landlords. And yes, landlords are always free to evict tenants they don't want. It's their property after all. If you don't like that, buy your own home. No one is stopping you.

Become a Bank,the fucking Republicans will bail you out.
They will let you borrow at near zero to zero % interest &
you can make loans to all the American dumbasses that don't
know any better than to pay more than the initial price for their purchases.
Charge whatever interest you choose.The borrowers don't know any better.

Get rich on the ignorant!

Strategist says

so why blame the landlords when they have nothing to do with increasing the supply of new constructio

rent-seeking is rent-seeking

because by their actions they are actively harming their renters and the community as a whole by their parasitism.

Morality can always be judged by translating economic activity as if it were between friends & family.

Would you sit in an investment property renting it out to family, pocketing the 11+% net in good conscience? Or would you arrange some sort of financing to give them ownership?

Free-enterprise business practices only work when there's sufficient competition for new business to constrain profit margins; otherwise it just becomes rent-seeking, as housing so aptly demonstrates.

bob2356 says

Where would you have lived until you could have afforded to buy if someone hadn't bought a condo and rented it to you?

That's just it, I want to change the broken system we have.

Actually I don't really give a shit any more, I just want to educate other people to pick up the fight for economic justice, if they want.

My position is that it should be possible for people to live on this planet without having to pay the toll-takers who have bought up so much of the real estate stock.

How we get there is open to debate. That we should get there shouldn't be, as it's plainly obvious rent-seeking in RE is indeed a main cause of poverty amid progress, that Georgist claptrap that rubs you the wrong way for some reason.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=fbgu
shows how food & housing have tracked wages since 1970, the more people make the more food and housing prices go up.

green and purple are clothing and cars, showing increased productivity and offshoring mfg has made them more and more affordable.

Housing is the $2.5T/yr elephant in the room, much of it a rent-tap from working poor to parasitical wealthy.

This is obvious, yes?

Bellingham Bill says

Would you sit in an investment property renting it out to family, pocketing the 11+% net in good conscience? Or would you arrange some sort of financing to give them ownership?

OMG...LOL. Do you realize how silly your responses are? Not even a shred of common sense.

Bac has been my best investment by far

Bellingham Bill says

bob2356 says

Where would you have lived until you could have afforded to buy if someone hadn't bought a condo and rented it to you?

That's just it, I want to change the broken system we have.

Actually I don't really give a shit any more, I just want to educate other people to pick up the fight for economic justice, if they want.

My position is that it should be possible for people to live on this planet without having to pay the toll-takers who have bought up so much of the real estate stock.

How we get there is open to debate. That we should get there shouldn't be, as it's plainly obvious rent-seeking in RE is indeed a main cause of poverty amid progress, that Georgist claptrap that rubs you the wrong way for some reason.

Grow up and join the real world. I bought my first house from hud for 27k totally trashed 30 years ago. I worked every night and weekend for 4 years and spent every cent on fixing it up. The equity I built let me move on and continue to build wealth.

The main cause of poverty? Bullshit. My very blue collar tenants all have no problem affording cigarettes, beer, and lottery. They all have expensive cable, current model smart phones, and late model cars. They are never going to be home owners. I don't smoke, drink, or play the lottery. I don't have cable and use a $5.00 tracphone. My ride is a 96 suburban with 320k. I own the houses mortgage free after a hell of a lot of work, blood, and sweat for a lot of years. Damn right I would take a profit on it.

So instead of stepping up to the plate, making the sacrifices, and doing the work you whine we need to change the system. Boo Hoo cry me a river of tears. Instead you invest in the stock market to fund the corporations buying up houses and renting them out. Perfect. Move your IRA to self directed and buy some houses yourself. Then you can fix them up and arrange financing to give people home ownership. What's stopping you? Make it happen instead of whining. Ante up your money.

Change the system to what? Where are all the examples of your ideal system in the real world? Crickets chirping.

You dodged the question again. Where would you live if someone didn't buy a condo and rent it out to you? Crickets chirping.

Why don't you move to somewhere that has economic justice that you approve of. Let us know where that is.

bob2356 says

Change the system to what? Where are all the examples of your ideal system in the real world? Crickets chirping.

You dodged the question again. Where would you live if someone didn't buy a condo and rent it out to you? Crickets chirping.

Why don't you move to somewhere that has economic justice that you approve of. Let us know where that is.

I'm convinced he lives in mom's basement. Where else can he get free rent and laundry service? That's economic justice to him.

Outside of the coastal areas and some major metropolis, land is plentiful, rents ae cheap and house prices are moderate.

lostand confused says

Outside of the coastal areas and some major metropolis, land is plentiful, rents ae cheap and house prices are moderate.

Unfortunately, good paying jobs and good schools are scarce in those areas.

bob2356 says

The main cause of poverty? Bullshit. My very blue collar tenants all have no problem affording cigarettes, beer, and lottery. They all have expensive cable, current model smart phones, and late model cars. They are never going to be home owners. I don't smoke, drink, or play the lottery. I don't have cable and use a $5.00 tracphone. My ride is a 96 suburban with 320k. I own the houses mortgage free after a hell of a lot of work, blood, and sweat for a lot of years. Damn right I would take a profit on it.

You are so evil, you capitalist peeg.

bob2356 says

So instead of stepping up to the plate, making the sacrifices, and doing the work you whine we need to change the system. Boo Hoo cry me a river of tears. Instead you invest in the stock market to fund the corporations buying up houses and renting them out. Perfect. Move your IRA to self directed and buy some houses yourself. Then you can fix them up and arrange financing to give people home ownership. What's stopping you? Make it happen instead of whining. Ante up your money.

He doesn't have any money. He is the financial advisor of his girlfriend who has a thousand dollars.

joeyjojojunior says

Unfortunately, good paying jobs and good schools are scarce in those areas

Depends on the locale and your profession. if your skillset gets only certain level of jobs, no point living there sharing a 2br with 6 other folks.

Strategist says

You are so evil, you capitalist peeg.

Absolutely.

Bellingham Bill says

b) collectively, people buying up real estate as "income properties" reduce the supply on the market and make buying more expensive for people.

but how will people (with no money to buy) rent if no one is a landlord? these renters obviously don't want to live in apartments, even willing to pay "middlemen"'s fees, otherwise they would have done that already.

Germany has broken this cycle by inducing the private sector to overbuild, and we can and should do the same.

----------------

Wouldn't that be MAGA?

It's as if these people don't understand the history of this country. A nation created by immigrants who came here for the Free land.

bob2356 says

You dodged the question again. Where would you live if someone didn't buy a condo and rent it out to you? Crickets chirping.

I tried to answer it above, and I'll try again via analogy.

I argue that our current system of land tenancy is profoundly unjust. Yet I rent, still saving to buy a place, next year most like. I am a hypocrite like Al Gore flying around the world talking about AGW? Doesn't matter, because the hypocrisy argument is a dodge, a deflection into the ad-hom fallacy.

I'd like to see enough quality housing available everywhere people want to live, along with the concomitant mass transit investments necessary to make that density actually livable.

Yet I still rent. Does that make my above desire for the future fallacious?

I think the current present is sub-optimal. I see how rich people picked up a lot of real estate in the last crash and are now renting it out at very nice profit, and I know these profits will continue to rise especially in CA and other states with nifty Prop 13 tax protections on LLs.

It's not just LLs, it's of course NIMBYism limiting housing. But private LLs are not necessary for the provision of sufficient housing for everyone. Singapore, Germany, and Japan showed that it's possible for government to throw over the Monopoly board and move who holds the whip in the tenancy relationship from leasor to lessee.

The sticks and bricks aren't what makes housing so expensive, MOSTLY what we pay for housing is simply what value we give to access to everything outside the lot lines; the LL is getting paid for providing things he is not actually producing.

He's actually really getting something for nothing.

Ok, time for the analogy. Let's cast the current situation as if the government has privatized O2, worse, driven all the O2 out of the atmosphere and now there's a neoliberal free market in O2 supplies from the annual supply allotment from the government.

You want O2, you've got to either buy your title to it from someone who owns one they aren't using, or of course you can rent one from someone if you can't afford that investment.

Population is going up of course so demand is increasing, putting price pressure on the fixed supply.

Here I am renting my O2 supply from someone, and arguing that this situation is total bullshit and how did we come to this anyway??

You come back with the bullying tactic of your argument is invalid, how would you be getting your oxygen if not from somebody who already owns it.

David Lloyd George, back when Parliament was |this close| to peacefully decapitating the landlordism in England, said it best:

"To trace a legal title to land one must trace it back to the man who stole it"

Investment in the sticks in bricks really isn't what RE is all about. Buying up the Monopoly board and enjoying the monopoly rents therein is the true game.

And that's why it's not an honest 5%.

Bellingham Bill says

I think the current present is sub-optimal. I see how rich people picked up a lot of real estate in the last crash and are now renting it out at very nice profit, and I know these profits will continue to rise especially in CA and other states with nifty Prop 13 tax protections on LLs.

It's not just LLs, it's of course NIMBYism limiting housing. But private LLs are not necessary for the provision of sufficient housing for everyone. Singapore, Germany, and Japan showed that it's possible for government to throw over the Monopoly board and move who holds the whip in the tenancy relationship from leasor to lessee.

The sticks and bricks aren't what makes housing so expensive, MOSTLY what we pay for housing is simply what value we give to access to everything outside the lot lines; the LL is getting paid for providing things he is not actually producing.

He's actually really getting something for nothing.

So you are a commie. All you had to do was tell us that, and we would understand.

Strategist says

So you are a commie. All you had to do was tell us that, and we would understand.

The red, red herring

"Royal libertarians" are fond of confusing the classical liberal concept of common land ownership, particularly as espoused by land value tax advocate Henry George, with socialism. Yet socialists have always been contemptuous of George and of the distinction between land monopoly and capital monopolies. However, Frank Chodorov and Albert J. Nock (the original editors of The Freeman) were both advocates of George's economic remedies as well as lovers of individual liberty.

The only reformer abroad in the world in my time who interested me in the least was Henry George, because his project did not contemplate prescription, but, on the contrary, would reduce it to almost zero. He was the only one of the lot who believed in freedom, or (as far as I could see) had any approximation to an intelligent idea of what freedom is, and of the economic prerequisites to attaining it....One is immensely tickled to see how things are coming out nowadays with reference to his doctrine, for George was in fact the best friend the capitalist ever had. He built up the most complete and most impregnable defense of the rights of capital that was ever constructed, and if the capitalists of his day had had sense enough to dig in behind it, their successors would not now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them, and which George would have no scruples whatever about describing as sheer highwaymanry.

--Albert J. Nock "Thoughts on Utopia"

http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
I, sir, am not a communist, and calling me that is a fallacious thinking in the form of the excluded middle

What capitalism isn't, actually, is profiting from getting something for nothing, taking money from people without providing any new goods or services in return for that consideration.

Sounds more like robbery to me.

Anyhoo, we can agree that Churchill was never a communist, yet he said all I'm saying:

http://www.cooperative-individualism.org/churchill-winston_mother-of-all-monopolies-1909.htm

Bellingham Bill says

It's not just LLs, it's of course NIMBYism limiting housing. But private LLs are not necessary for the provision of sufficient housing for everyone. Singapore, Germany, and Japan showed that it's possible for government to throw over the Monopoly board and move who holds the whip in the tenancy relationship from leasor to lessee.

Singapore? Japan? Germany? They are rent subsidized and/or public housing. So what you want is everyone else to subsidize you ? Free ride, take it easy. Want to compare free market purchase prices between these places and the US?

Bellingham Bill says

What capitalism isn't, actually, is profiting from getting something for nothing, taking money from people without providing any new goods or services in return for that consideration.

Sounds more like robbery to me.

Getting something for nothing? That's why you are a renter. Capitalism is the investment of capital for a return. Providing people with a place to live they don't want to or can't afford to buy is a service. Just because you want everyone else to subsidize you doesn't make it not true.

Are you still working on a list of places where your theories about georgism and land banks are in action? When can we expect to see it? Reminds me of the story of the man who goes to the butcher and asks how much for a steak. the butcher says $10 the man says that it's only $6 down the street. the butcher says then buy it down the street. the man says they are out. the butcher says that when I run out it will be $6 also.

When will you be converting your IRA to self directed and buying some houses to put your altruistic beliefs into action? Actions speak louder than words.