patrick.net

No. Ownership has nothing to do with patriotism.

Yes.

Not necessarily. A proud Capitalist will seek the maximum control with the minimum amount of capital. Sometimes renting makes sense. Sometimes leasing a car makes sense.

Is ownership a real property and a personal property a patriotic act?

LOL. King George III was the greatest patriot in American history?

"And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid."

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/settleland/proclamation.html

Is ownership a manifestation of being a proud Capitalist?

by definition, yes.

Are these values still alive or dead in our society?

Loaded word "value" there.

If more "ownership" is a "value", what could be the highest expression than owning ALL classes of chattel property, including legal title to other humans themselves?

Now THAT is a traditional American value we need to return to!

So mere ownership is not "patriotic", though the more you own the more "patriotic" you tend to be (and the less you own the less "patriotic").

True "patriots" would want to see MORE people own real estate and physical capital, LOL.

Problem is real estate -- the land component at least -- is pretty much a zero sum thing. The more I own the less you can own.

We can build more housing, but more housing in a given area actually makes it a shittier place to live, generally speaking.

Wealth is that which improves our lives. The goods we make and trade, and the services we provide each other.

Capital wealth is that which makes it easier to create this primary, direct wealth. It is the land, the natural resources, and the knowledge, skills, and talent we need to create wealth.

Patriots should be INCREASING the capital of the nation.

Mere ownership (of what was the natural commons), and TAKING other people's productive output by leveraging natural monopoly and other asymmetric dealings, is the opposite of that; indeed, such rent-seeking in land and monopoly is profoundly unpatriotic in that it weakens the social fabric of this nation, and our collective ability to create wealth.

1. Patriotism. If you have your own land and a house and you take care of it, you improve the quality of your life and quality of your neighborhood. You participate and feel part of your community and on the bigger scale your country. You are responsible citizen. Property gives you this feeling of obligation/responsibility and feeling of ownership a piece of the country. You also work towards the good of the country if you own and work to improve your property.

3. Capitalist. I don't think it is the correct definition. Capitalist is wealth creator and owner. I understand if the property doesn't create wealth or a big amount of wealth then sometimes is better not to own it. Is property always wealth then?

GraooGra says

Is property always wealth then?

No. Property can be a liability.

GraooGra says

Is property always wealth then?

Wealth is that which satisfies human wants and needs.

Technically, wealth is providing certain services of utility, the act of satisfying unmet wants or needs.

A concrete sidewalk is a form of wealth, in that it provides a more efficient pathway to get between two places compared to the natural state of dirt or whatever, which in the rain becomes mud and also will soon become an impenetrable mass of weeds if left alone.

A prosperous society has everyone diligently CREATING needed new wealth and nobody wantonly DESTROYING existing wealth.

Note that wealth is not money, LOL. Nor is the the titles we attach to existing wealth. Money and titles of ownership are legalisms we use to facilitate the creation, trade, and preservation of wealth.

Bellingham Bill says

Wealth is that which satisfies human wants and needs.

I think wealth is control, which may be contrary to the wants and needs of some.

Peter P says

I think wealth is control

title provides the legal means of determining control over existing wealth.

different, but related

For real property the legal tenancy determines who controls the entitled wealth.

Fee simple owners can rent their property out to tenants -- which, in the original Latin is not as "derogatory" in meaning as the English is today -- who have the right to exclusively "hold" and use the property as long as they keep to the agreement between parties.

In the physical world, wealth cannot be used simultaneously so tenancy -- "control" -- is important.

But there are abstract forms of wealth that do not require tenancy to be able to be used productively. Nobody "controls" most of the IP we use to live our lives productively today, yet this IP is a form of capital wealth.

Bellingham Bill says

LOL. King George III was the greatest patriot in American history?

Canadians were patriots, you were rebels ;)

Peter P says

GraooGra says

Is property always wealth then?

No. Property can be a liability.

You are correct. If property is asset and your liabilities exceed assets you don't have wealth.

yes, the American Revolution was something of an "inside job".

"You know, we can probably take this place . . . Parliament is far off and us colonials are pretty pissed at them now . . ."

GraooGra says

If property is asset and your liabilities exceed assets you don't have wealth.

Never confuse asset value for "wealth"!

During the last years of Steve Jobs life I was wealthier than he, even though he was a multi-billionaire.

I had a functional body, he did not.

I know, I'm talking Balance Sheet's wealth.

Balance sheets can lie.

GraooGra says

1. Patriotism. If you have your own land and a house and you take care of it, you improve the quality of your life and quality of your neighborhood. You participate and feel part of your community and on the bigger scale your country. You are responsible citizen. Property gives you this feeling of obligation/responsibility and feeling of ownership a piece of the country. You also work towards the good of the country if you own and work to improve your property.

So as a renter I should not care that:

The house next door was the target of a drive-by shooting. Why should I, it doesn't affect MY property value!

My kids school is staffed by indifferent teachers. It is also full of bullies, wanna be gang bangers and druggies. But hey, its not MY problem, I'M a renter.

The house is full of black mold - not my problem, it's the landlords.

The drug dealer on the corner selling hard drugs to kids - eh, who cares, I rent.

Peter P says

I think wealth is control, which may be contrary to the wants and needs of some.

Control is illusory, wealth is tangible. You can place a value on it.

GraooGra says

Peter P says

I think wealth is control, which may be contrary to the wants and needs of some.

Control is illusory, wealth is tangible. You can place a value on it.

Not so. ;-)

Wealth feels tangible only because you can put a number on it.

New Renter says

So as a renter I should not care that:

The house next door was the target of a drive-by shooting. Why should I, it doesn't affect MY property value!

My kids school is staffed by indifferent teachers. It is also full of bullies, wanna be gang bangers and druggies. But hey, its not MY problem, I'M a renter.

The house is full of black mold - not my problem, it's the landlords.

The drug dealer on the corner selling hard drugs to kids - eh, who cares, I rent.

Maybe because there is too many renters in that neighborhood they are these problems? You personally might care but other people don't feel obligated to care.

GraooGra says

Control is illusory, wealth is tangible. You can place a value on it.

You can place a value on control, too. It's called rent.

Peter P says

Wealth feels tangible only because you can put a number on it.

Wealth at its most elemental is simply being well. That's the secret of living well even if you don't have a big bank balance, and why "rich" people can be so unhappy as to kill themselves.

Now, stuff we buy can in fact provide services we think we need, but in reality our needs are not necessarily that great.

Food, water, shelter, friendship, health.

If you've got that covered, you've got it made.

Not so simple. Wealth is a vehicle for the individual will-to-power.

I have an agenda in this post, I have to admit.
I did not read Patrick's book. I watch this forum long enough to understand his idea.

He basically denounces ownership because the market is not healthy and it is still better financially to rent than to own.
This is his financial justification. I agree with it 100%. However I don't want to fool myself. There are other reasons, emotional ones, more people still want to own than to rent. It is inside of us. The way you deal with that is to deprive yourself that emotional aspect, trying to justify that "psychological needs should be dealt with". For me it is almost like you guys decide to go to priesthood and declaring celibacy for higher values. Sorry for that comparison, but it is the best one I came out with.
I'm trying to say that 'desire" of ownership is A. natural, B. good. and I give an example of patriotism, pride, responsibility, wealth creation. We shouldn't suppress that desire or be ashamed of it or think there is something wrong with us because we want a house. We can wait of course for better times to buy but we shouldn't deny it to ourselves.
I guess that what I tried to express in here.

GraooGra says

New Renter says

So as a renter I should not care that:

The house next door was the target of a drive-by shooting. Why should I, it doesn't affect MY property value!

My kids school is staffed by indifferent teachers. It is also full of bullies, wanna be gang bangers and druggies. But hey, its not MY problem, I'M a renter.

The house is full of black mold - not my problem, it's the landlords.

The drug dealer on the corner selling hard drugs to kids - eh, who cares, I rent.

Maybe because there is too many renters in that neighborhood they are these problems? You personally might care but other people don't feel obligated to care.

I think most people, renters or owners aren't too happy about bullets flying in the neighborhood. Granted renters may have the ability to flee while owners are stuck. In that regard you may have a point, however there comes a time when the renters can no longer find a safe haven.

Of course the property owners should have a say in all this. Even if the renters don't care the landlords should - its THEIR property values being affected after all. They have the ability to either evict problem tenants or at the minimum refuse to renew the lease.

So what does a neighborhood do against a homeowner who does not keep up the property? Lets say the property owner is a disabled war hero who cannot do the work himself or afford to hire someone, what then?

I don't think that buys vs rent or homeownership in general has anything to do with patriotism. It's simply a decision based on qualitative and quantitative factors. However, patriotism is not really one of them. Regarding "American Values" - the relationship would only be incidental in that homeownership is an "american value" based on social value system. However, neither owner or renter should view themselves as more or less american. Regarding "proud capitalist" - I suppose that someone who cares about asset growth/preservation would be more inclined to buy if they have a long term outlook. A "proud capitalist" would probably prefer the "forced savings" aspects of principal paydowns vs converting principal payments into liquid cash as a renter would and then potentially blowing that same liquid cash on going out to eat/shopping as a renter might do. As far as whether these values are "alive or dead" - kinda hard to generalize, but from my experience I would say that most people in their 20s/early 30s don't really view homeownership as a status symbol all that much and tend to pripritize discretionary spending and social activites that discretionary spending facilitates.

For me home ownership is all about the lease not being up next month.
And never, ever having to consider the landlord when I buy and use a tool.
I'm not sweating whether or not I'll get my deposit back.
So far(and due to the economic times of deflation) I've actually gotten checks back at the end of the year from escrow. $1200 the first year, $550 last year, and around $500 this year. Another year and another grand and I'll have my deposit I put down on the place back.

I can't recall the landlord ever giving me money back at the end of the year.

My wife can talk about back yard wedding receptions, in five or ten years, and it not seem preposterous. Even though marriage is nowhere on our daughters horizon yet.

GraooGra says

Is ownership a real property and a personal property a patriotic act?
Is ownership considered adherence to American Values?
Is ownership a manifestation of being a proud Capitalist?

If so, then the government is being unpatriotic by propping up housing prices.