Hacker News Reader

Comment by flandish | Hacker News Reader

> relief

Nationalize (rental) housing or make it so no corporation can own housing. Co-ops where renters are actually owners for large scale buildings. More single family housing.

Riots.

I mean.. there are lots of ways

View on HN

> Nationalize (rental) housing or make it so no corporation can own housing

Right now, only "luxury" housing developers are building new housing in high demand areas, so this is a recipe for curbing new development.

> Co-ops where renters are actually owners for large scale buildings.

Co-ops are cheaper monetarily, but you instead "pay" with you're inconvenience or conformity, which sometimes can include your skin color. Good luck proving that though.

> More single family housing.

That works, but there isn't any room to build any more in the most expensive housing markets

> Riots

Are also a great way to discourage new housing development and destroy the existing supply

Looks then like the safest way is nationalization. All of it.

* safest for the humans needing homes which is the only pov that should be considered.

Great. Now should we ban all unions because some of them are corrupt? Should we ban democracy because some politicians cheat?

Those are all very bad ideas.

barring rational regulation, we are likely to observe irrational actions in the future. Cost Disease is progressing to the point where prices are non-sensical. How does the median house appreciate more than the median income every year? Carry forward college prices 15 years and a 4 year degree will cost 800k. These are not sustainable numbers. Gen Alpha would be facing a 1.6 MM starting home cost and be saddled with hundreds of thousands in student loan debt.

Yes, we need to build more houses. Investing in real estate only makes sense when supply is constrained. When we allow people to build housing values tend more toward the cost to build as you cant speculate without constraining supply.

Motte-and-bailey fallacy here. We have one comment above asking for nationalization and you are defending regulation which everyone will accept.

That’s not the motte-and-bailey fallacy, that’s simply two different points on a policy spectrum being argued by different parties.

Bad for whom? Shareholders? Fuck shareholders, people need homes they can afford.

Ideas labeled as crazy or even violent have sprung up over history when people are pushed to breaking points.

Capitalism’s formula for infinite expansion will eventually break people.

How things like housing, healthcare, education, food are allowed to profit boggles my mind and is deplorable.

Bad for making it so there are homes that people can afford.

Capitalism yada yada - people need resources in order to get homes, people will only construct homes if they get resources in exchange. These are just facts of the world - it sucks that building costs, but it does.

If there is demand for house construction, people will build houses as a service. No land ownership, or even no housing ownership does not change this fact.

*profit

Profit is stolen wage or stolen housing.

When profit is allowed for things that make people safe, housed, healthy, fed, or educated, those profiting are, imho, committing crimes against humanity.

Ok, this is a parody account. (Or someone with 0 knowledge of Econ 101) Time to move on.

> Capitalism’s formula for infinite expansion will eventually break people.

Is it really capitalism when local governments and NIMBYies prevent housing?

In truth, communism has broken housing in the US.

> communism

There has never been communism. Especially in the US.

Stop pretending people owning homes is impossible and only for corporations - it only makes you seem like the simp for profit piece of trash you are.

People don’t prevent housing. Capitalism does.

Trash comment by trash person. Grow up dude.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com