Not not good. Means there is no money to be made in renting
Right, because of the government imposed price cap. The article covers that.
and less houses will be built because of
Where does this part of the idea come from? There’s no price controls on buying or selling housing, therefor should be no negative impact on the market. Further, the price of homeowners buying housing should have been temporarily cheaper because landlords were unloading properties instead. Private home ownership is a really good solid foundation for an economy.
Unfortunately a healthy housing market is surprisingly a good thing. It’s like when house prices collapse it’s actually a bad thing because the reason that happened is worse than the result on the house prices (e.g. 2008). People look at the system far to simply, do not understand it and make the wrong judgements. It’s the problem of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing.
Because there is no value it building a house because there is no value in buying one.
Many many people have talked about the issues of price caps. It’s been done to death. Go look up a podcast, YouTube video, book, seminar, webpage of your choosing and find out why rent caps are bad. They will do a better job of explaining it than me and you can consume the information in the way you want.
Personally I would like some big changes to be made. Easiest of which would be a land value tax which would increase homes and decrease prices. Or much more radical things like destroying parts of cities. Unfortunately I don’t make those choices. So reading the information here is showing the opposite of what you think it does and in the system being used is good news.
Unfortunately a healthy housing market is surprisingly a good thing.
“Unfortunately” “a good thing”. These two things don’t seem to work together. Typo? ESL?
It’s like when house prices collapse it’s actually a bad thing because the reason that happened is worse than the result on the house prices (e.g. 2008).
If you’re speaking about the USA in 2008 that’s a bad example compared to Argentina here, yes? In the USA the collapse was lenders extending mortgages to buyers that had no chance of paying them back, yet selling those mortgages as though they were good investments.
Are you suggesting Argentina was experiencing a liquidity issue like the USA was, and if so, the imposition of price caps on just rentals, not ownership should have no effect on it unless you’re saying the price caps on rentals perfectly overlaps with a liquidity crisis.
People look at the system far to simply, do not understand it and make the wrong judgements. It’s the problem of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing.
You can use that throwaway line, but if you are making an argument, you have to defend it.
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens).
Because there is not value it building a house because there is no value in buying one.
Again, we’re talking about just rental caps, not home ownership. And again, the reason that landlords were selling was because of price caps on rents. People wanting to buy homes for housing (and not rent) should be in a fantastic position to purchase.
Many many people have talked about the issues if price caps. It’s been done to death. Go look up a podcast, YouTube video, book, seminar, webpage of your choosing and find out why rent caps are bad. They will do a better job of explaining it than me and you can consume the information in the way you want.
Are you even reading my posts? I am not advocating for rental price caps, I’m asking why when the price caps were imposed that home ownership did not go up from the landlords putting more homes on the market.
Personally I would like some big changes to be made. Easiest of which would be a land value tax which would increase homes and decrease prices. Or much more radical things like destroying parts of cities. Unfortunately I don’t make those choices. So reading the information here is showing the opposite of what you think it does.
The following is true as reported in the article: Rental units are disappearing from the market (which is what happened here with the imposition of price caps on rentals and landlords sold).
Where did all the renters go that no longer could rent because the landlords removed so many units from rental markets? They have to live somewhere. Where?
Was the rental market over saturated and even with so many landlords removing rental units there was still enough rental supply for 100% of renters?
Unfortunately for Lemmys a professor of economics knows more about the economy than they do. He is making the housing market healthier and they don’t like that.
If you’re speaking about the USA in 2008 that’s a bad example compared to Argentina here, yes?
I was trying to show an obvious example of how decreasing house prices can be a bad thing. It’s an similar example, it is not the same. I was hoping to show you how just because something on the surface appears to be good it can be bad.
You can use that throwaway line, but if you are making an argument, you have to defend it.
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens).
What a horrific misuse of that quote. I’m talking about economy theory that has been well studied. Evolution doesn’t need to be proved every time it is mentioned why does this? At this point you need to assert against general consensus.
Okay right. With price caps total homes, now and in the future for rentals added to ownership decrease. This can put pressure on prices to rise overall for rentals and for home ownership.
Where did all the renters go that no longer could rent because the landlords removed so many units from rental markets? They have to live somewhere. Where?
Parents, friends, the street, foreign countries some of them would have gotten a home certainly but not all. At this point you will really need to be digging into the data and things get complicated and hard to count exactly.
I see your confusion now. The market is not over saturated, that’s the mistake you are making in your thinking. It’s a supply and demand curve. More people would rent if it became cheaper when it becomes more expensive less people do. Frankly it is as simple as that. Less people get to live where and how they want as cheap as they would like that’s why rent control is so awful. This effect can put a similar effect on home ownership. People that can, then buy when they don’t want to at a price they aren’t happy with in a location they don’t want. Some people just can’t afford to buy a house when they once could. It just fucks over the whole market and pretty much everyone is less happy.
You seem interested in it. Go investigate. No point arguing with some random guy on a forum, go look at some quality content.
Not all rentals will become purchased homes. From a people living in it point of view homes disappear off the market. The problem also gets worse and worst over time, assuming the population of the city is increasing.
I’m tired I’m come back later and re read everything and see if I need to explain anything better then.
I’m tired I’m come back later and re read everything and see if I need to explain anything better then.
No need. Read @Shardikprime@lemmy.world 's explanation. I got the missing piece which explains it (and its not even close to anything you were talking about).
I got the answer to my original question of “why home ownership didn’t increase when property values fell?”.
Its this:
“Little problem is that mortgages have been absent in anything but paper so Argentines have not been able to acquire property or housing with ease since years ago”
… and this…
“Last time mortgages were available, it was in 2017/2018.”
Would-be home buyers couldn’t get mortgages because banks wouldn’t lend to anyone. Full stop.
You and I were trying to apply normal market conditions that exist in the USA. Instead I took the approach of asking how Argentinians house themselves and Shardikprime seems to have the regional knowledge both you and I were missing.
Not not good. Means there is no money to be made in renting and less houses will be built because of it.
Ultimately it is a supply and demand issue. Long term effects are more important in the housing market than short ones. These are short term effects.
Right, because of the government imposed price cap. The article covers that.
Where does this part of the idea come from? There’s no price controls on buying or selling housing, therefor should be no negative impact on the market. Further, the price of homeowners buying housing should have been temporarily cheaper because landlords were unloading properties instead. Private home ownership is a really good solid foundation for an economy.
Unfortunately a healthy housing market is surprisingly a good thing. It’s like when house prices collapse it’s actually a bad thing because the reason that happened is worse than the result on the house prices (e.g. 2008). People look at the system far to simply, do not understand it and make the wrong judgements. It’s the problem of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing.
Because there is no value it building a house because there is no value in buying one.
Many many people have talked about the issues of price caps. It’s been done to death. Go look up a podcast, YouTube video, book, seminar, webpage of your choosing and find out why rent caps are bad. They will do a better job of explaining it than me and you can consume the information in the way you want.
Personally I would like some big changes to be made. Easiest of which would be a land value tax which would increase homes and decrease prices. Or much more radical things like destroying parts of cities. Unfortunately I don’t make those choices. So reading the information here is showing the opposite of what you think it does and in the system being used is good news.
“Unfortunately” “a good thing”. These two things don’t seem to work together. Typo? ESL?
If you’re speaking about the USA in 2008 that’s a bad example compared to Argentina here, yes? In the USA the collapse was lenders extending mortgages to buyers that had no chance of paying them back, yet selling those mortgages as though they were good investments.
Are you suggesting Argentina was experiencing a liquidity issue like the USA was, and if so, the imposition of price caps on just rentals, not ownership should have no effect on it unless you’re saying the price caps on rentals perfectly overlaps with a liquidity crisis.
You can use that throwaway line, but if you are making an argument, you have to defend it.
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens).
Again, we’re talking about just rental caps, not home ownership. And again, the reason that landlords were selling was because of price caps on rents. People wanting to buy homes for housing (and not rent) should be in a fantastic position to purchase.
Are you even reading my posts? I am not advocating for rental price caps, I’m asking why when the price caps were imposed that home ownership did not go up from the landlords putting more homes on the market.
The following is true as reported in the article: Rental units are disappearing from the market (which is what happened here with the imposition of price caps on rentals and landlords sold).
Where did all the renters go that no longer could rent because the landlords removed so many units from rental markets? They have to live somewhere. Where?
Was the rental market over saturated and even with so many landlords removing rental units there was still enough rental supply for 100% of renters?
…OR did they buy houses instead of renting?
No that was sarcasm are you ESL?
Unfortunately for Lemmys a professor of economics knows more about the economy than they do. He is making the housing market healthier and they don’t like that.
I was trying to show an obvious example of how decreasing house prices can be a bad thing. It’s an similar example, it is not the same. I was hoping to show you how just because something on the surface appears to be good it can be bad.
What a horrific misuse of that quote. I’m talking about economy theory that has been well studied. Evolution doesn’t need to be proved every time it is mentioned why does this? At this point you need to assert against general consensus.
Okay right. With price caps total homes, now and in the future for rentals added to ownership decrease. This can put pressure on prices to rise overall for rentals and for home ownership.
Parents, friends, the street, foreign countries some of them would have gotten a home certainly but not all. At this point you will really need to be digging into the data and things get complicated and hard to count exactly.
I see your confusion now. The market is not over saturated, that’s the mistake you are making in your thinking. It’s a supply and demand curve. More people would rent if it became cheaper when it becomes more expensive less people do. Frankly it is as simple as that. Less people get to live where and how they want as cheap as they would like that’s why rent control is so awful. This effect can put a similar effect on home ownership. People that can, then buy when they don’t want to at a price they aren’t happy with in a location they don’t want. Some people just can’t afford to buy a house when they once could. It just fucks over the whole market and pretty much everyone is less happy.
You seem interested in it. Go investigate. No point arguing with some random guy on a forum, go look at some quality content.
Not all rentals will become purchased homes. From a people living in it point of view homes disappear off the market. The problem also gets worse and worst over time, assuming the population of the city is increasing.
I’m tired I’m come back later and re read everything and see if I need to explain anything better then.
No need. Read @Shardikprime@lemmy.world 's explanation. I got the missing piece which explains it (and its not even close to anything you were talking about).
I got the answer to my original question of “why home ownership didn’t increase when property values fell?”.
Its this:
“Little problem is that mortgages have been absent in anything but paper so Argentines have not been able to acquire property or housing with ease since years ago”
… and this…
“Last time mortgages were available, it was in 2017/2018.”
Would-be home buyers couldn’t get mortgages because banks wouldn’t lend to anyone. Full stop.
You and I were trying to apply normal market conditions that exist in the USA. Instead I took the approach of asking how Argentinians house themselves and Shardikprime seems to have the regional knowledge both you and I were missing.
True in fact property prices are at An All time low now in Argentina