Inflation-adjusted home prices in China have fallen below where they started two decades ago, and the fiscal fallout is hitting local governments even harder than developers.
I promise I understand what you’re saying. I’m saying the fault in your logic is misunderstanding the upward pressure of cash buyers.
When prices fall, it isn’t chum in the water for corporate cash buyers. What it means is that those same buyers were ALWAYS there, and are now leaving. The absence of thier buy pressure is the cause of the prices falling.
The price of anything is the balance of buyers and sellers.
The price TELLS you where the equilibrium is. It is the OUTPUT of the function.
Houses aren’t Hienz Ketchup. Head office doesn’t just decree a house price. You’re imagining the housing market works like Taylor swift tickets from ticket master.
You don’t even have to hypothesize on this because housing markets have been swinging around for decades. People on the sidelines were able to buy houses after 2008 that they’d never have been able to afford otherwise. It worked out GREAT for people who has been sidelined.
I entered the market at the brief but violent housing downturn in late 2019. I never would have been able to otherwise.
They suck for people who own a home and are depending on thier equity. It sucks for people who own a home and the banks get nervous.
Whenever I hear people saying to people without homes “be careful what you wish for” when they are wishing houses were cheaper… I just hear my old boss telling me how I shouldn’t want a raise because it’ll “bump me into a higher tax bracket”.
It’s bullshit half-truths which sound just plausible enough to convince you to not act in your own best interests.
If you own a property, its in your own financial best interests to have the value increase. If you do not own property, but want to, you want the price to go down.
You’re oversimplifying. Obviously if I want to buy a house I want the price to go down. What we are talking about here is that cheaper housing isn’t the only consequence of lower housing prices. And I’m not sure that comparing it to saying a higher tax bracket is in any way an adequate comparison given the tax brackets just don’t work that way at all. Like I wouldn’t even call that a half truth.
I’m also not saying that nobody would benefit, what I’m trying to point out is that the net gain wouldn’t be the same as say legislation that actually increased the housing supply. If your end goal is to be able to own a house wishing for a housing market crash isn’t the best wish you can make. Private equity firms bought more houses after the 2008 crash than the people sitting on the sidelines.
At the end of the day what you’re actually wishing for is one last housing crash otherwise you’re just hoping that it crashes again for other people after you buy your house and you’re stuck there.
“Although a drop in housing prices would provide a reprieve to those who do not own, the fundamental structure of housing as a commodity is the greater beast that must be defeated”
Now, that’s true, I’m 100% on board.
I do feel like people sometimes let perfect become the enemy of good. “The homeless guy doesn’t need a handout, he needs a job”, they mutter as they walk on by.
If you wanna think that long term, I actually don’t think you’ve gone far enough. Government supply initiatives? A start, but still a bandaid. Massive increasing tax rates on multiple ownership. Cap on residential property that can be owned by Corporations. Rent controls. Pull no punches to establish that housing is not a viable speculative investment. You build to sell to people who will live there.
What about the equity you’re about to decimate? Government needs to get back big time into the pension game. Big time. How will I live? Eat? Get medical care as I age? Needs a fix.
Until those broad changes occur, I’ll still be cheering every dip.
Yes which would mean that the cash buyers would have all the houses and the people who needed loans wouldn’t. Which was my point.
That is not what that means.
I promise I understand what you’re saying. I’m saying the fault in your logic is misunderstanding the upward pressure of cash buyers.
When prices fall, it isn’t chum in the water for corporate cash buyers. What it means is that those same buyers were ALWAYS there, and are now leaving. The absence of thier buy pressure is the cause of the prices falling.
The fault in your logic is thinking there won’t be more cash buyers if prices dropped.
But then the prices go up again.
The price of anything is the balance of buyers and sellers.
The price TELLS you where the equilibrium is. It is the OUTPUT of the function.
Houses aren’t Hienz Ketchup. Head office doesn’t just decree a house price. You’re imagining the housing market works like Taylor swift tickets from ticket master.
You don’t even have to hypothesize on this because housing markets have been swinging around for decades. People on the sidelines were able to buy houses after 2008 that they’d never have been able to afford otherwise. It worked out GREAT for people who has been sidelined.
I entered the market at the brief but violent housing downturn in late 2019. I never would have been able to otherwise.
They suck for people who own a home and are depending on thier equity. It sucks for people who own a home and the banks get nervous.
Whenever I hear people saying to people without homes “be careful what you wish for” when they are wishing houses were cheaper… I just hear my old boss telling me how I shouldn’t want a raise because it’ll “bump me into a higher tax bracket”.
It’s bullshit half-truths which sound just plausible enough to convince you to not act in your own best interests.
If you own a property, its in your own financial best interests to have the value increase. If you do not own property, but want to, you want the price to go down.
You’re oversimplifying. Obviously if I want to buy a house I want the price to go down. What we are talking about here is that cheaper housing isn’t the only consequence of lower housing prices. And I’m not sure that comparing it to saying a higher tax bracket is in any way an adequate comparison given the tax brackets just don’t work that way at all. Like I wouldn’t even call that a half truth.
I’m also not saying that nobody would benefit, what I’m trying to point out is that the net gain wouldn’t be the same as say legislation that actually increased the housing supply. If your end goal is to be able to own a house wishing for a housing market crash isn’t the best wish you can make. Private equity firms bought more houses after the 2008 crash than the people sitting on the sidelines.
At the end of the day what you’re actually wishing for is one last housing crash otherwise you’re just hoping that it crashes again for other people after you buy your house and you’re stuck there.
Ok, I can accept what I think I just read:
“Although a drop in housing prices would provide a reprieve to those who do not own, the fundamental structure of housing as a commodity is the greater beast that must be defeated”
Now, that’s true, I’m 100% on board.
I do feel like people sometimes let perfect become the enemy of good. “The homeless guy doesn’t need a handout, he needs a job”, they mutter as they walk on by.
If you wanna think that long term, I actually don’t think you’ve gone far enough. Government supply initiatives? A start, but still a bandaid. Massive increasing tax rates on multiple ownership. Cap on residential property that can be owned by Corporations. Rent controls. Pull no punches to establish that housing is not a viable speculative investment. You build to sell to people who will live there.
What about the equity you’re about to decimate? Government needs to get back big time into the pension game. Big time. How will I live? Eat? Get medical care as I age? Needs a fix.
Until those broad changes occur, I’ll still be cheering every dip.
I had a feeling we were only disagreeing on the means not the ends.