Kansas Crimson

Its a fix by the real estate conglomerates. Combined with the feds stubborn approach to attempt to stimulate the economy by keeping interest rates low (not that this matters when they are cash deals but still).

NotGutterGutter wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 8:51 am Yesterday I visited an "Independent senior living" place in the heart of Chicago.
If you need to be in "assisted" living then they have all the resources there for you.
You purchase a place and then pay monthly fees. When the person dies (or leaves) you get back 70% of your "investment" (purchase cost).
It currently has what they are estimating as being a 4 year waiting period for a 2 bedroom apartment.
Of course meaning there is a substantial waiting list.
What if anything is the moral of this?

Trying to decipher some more for you but not quite sure.

Apparently market demand is high for senior assisted care? And/or supply is low.

I’d say maybe it’s just not a lucrative enough market, but FWIW my grandma spent her last couple years in a nursing home - to the tune of $9k a month. Blew through much of her life savings.

Not sure what the moral of that is either.

TDub wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 10:49 am Its a fix by the real estate conglomerates. Combined with the feds stubborn approach to attempt to stimulate the economy by keeping interest rates low (not that this matters when they are cash deals but still).

so same question as gutter’s - is there a moral to this?

If you view it as all bad and you don’t support it, what remedies or other approaches might you suggest?

Commercial purchasers only allowed to purchase commercially zoned property.


I put no thought into that and I Dont know that would work long term...but fuck it thats what Im going with until i think about why thats wrong

So if we’re placing limits on who can purchase what, isn’t that some regulation to limit the free market, then?

What entity (he said tity, huh huh) would you suggest impose and enforce that regulation?

And if I haven’t been clearer, lemme just say - I agree with you here!

I think houses should be more about putting a roof over the heads, and assets in the portfolios, of Mericans; and less about being just another stock in trade for corporations.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 11:03 am So if we’re placing limits on who can purchase what, isn’t that some regulation to limit the free market, then?

What entity (he said tity, huh huh) would you suggest impose and enforce that regulation?

And if I haven’t been clearer, lemme just say - I agree with you here!

I think houses should be more about putting a roof over the heads, and assets in the portfolios, of Mericans; and less about being just another stock in trade for corporations.

Again....when the market is being artificially manipulated.....its not a free market.

Microsoft got in trouble for the software version of this not long ago.

I can’t disagree that an artificially manipulated market is not a free market.

But you’re the one who wants to place limits on who can buy what.

And again - I think that’s a good idea!

What I think is a bad idea, is to sit back and have blind faith that some invisible hand will make this all better.

Its allowing the market to be free...not adding additional regulations necessarily. That was just a throwaway idea. Just need to enforce antitrust laws basically.

Enforce antitrust laws?

Sounds like additional regulations.

They are existing regulations.....

http://www.realestateindepth.com/legal- ... spotlight/

https://study.com/academy/lesson/antitr ... mples.html


https://www.prepagent.com/article/sherman-antitrust-act

Oh, excuse me.

Existing regulations that were put in previously, to limit the freedoms of the market.

So I suppose your argument then, is that we’ve already enacted every regulation we need, and we shouldn’t enact any new ones. It’s a matter of enforcing the ones on the books.

Are there existing antitrust laws that address corporations hoarding houses?

Enforce does not equal create/add.

It may be necessary to amend the existing regulations based on changing technology and definitions.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 11:33 am Oh, excuse me.

Existing regulations that were put in previously, to limit the freedoms of the market.

So I suppose your argument then, is that we’ve already enacted every regulation we need, and we shouldn’t enact any new ones. It’s a matter of enforcing the ones on the books.

Are there existing antitrust laws that address corporations hoarding houses?

Jesus fucking christ


They arent put there to limit the freedoms of the market they are put there to ensure the freedom of the market.


You only hear what you want to...its crazy. Like youve been brainwashed


Qusdahl.



Did you read any of the links. It could fall under a number of existing acts.

Let’s try not to get too worked up.

And yeah, perhaps it’s a matter of perspective. I’d guess the corporations buying up houses don’t view an antitrust enforcement telling them they can’t buy up houses as ensuring their freedom within the market.

I’m not sure antitrust laws are to ensure market freedom, so much as they are to ensure market fairness.

Actually, this seems like a paradox of sorts. Some allege antitrust laws are anti-free market and anti-competitive, when in reality, it’s more to ensure free market competition is still allowed. Almost hard to saw which is capitalism and which is not.

There’s some capitalist tipping point, apparently, when the capitalists want less free market competition and more monopolistic control for themselves.

And yeah, sorry I haven’t read all your links. But with no titles or quotes or other context relative to the discussion offered, I can’t help but suspect they’re really just Rick Rolls.

TDub wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 10:49 am Its a fix by the real estate conglomerates. Combined with the feds stubborn approach to attempt to stimulate the economy by keeping interest rates low (not that this matters when they are cash deals but still).

I’m confused. If the interest rate is artificially low (arguable about the artificial part, but that’s beside the point) why would any commercial or other entity pay cash especially for people who are ostensibly playing the rates?

Those arent necessarily related items, but are both impacting the market.


Cash is still cheaper than a 3 % interest rate

Not if you can make 5% elsewhere with that money. Net of taxes 30-year rate is around 2%. That’s why it never made sense to pay the extra principal for home loans. Power of compounding allows one to make a lot more in an index fund and then payoff the remaining loan after 25 years, and still have money left!