- Thread starter
- #81
That's a tautology.Of course there is. When the value of my home is driven lower because of the forced eviction of my neighbor, the price of my home is being forced to go lower.
No it's not.
That doesn't prevent it from going underwater, nor does it reduce my access to the capital I have in that house.
True, but most "investments" are relatively liquid and of far less important to the holder.
Why should houses be any different.
You really need an explanation of why housing is a different type of investment than shares of Budweiser or Treasury bonds?
That's called risk. Asking the gov't to eliminate risk is asking it to eliminate reward as well. Eventually you end up with a command economy. And we know how those work out.
No one is suggesting removing risk -from the homeowner, or from the banks you seem so afraid to offend.
Actually it is. Try it out: The value of my home goes lower and the price goes lower.
A home is fundamentally no different an investment than anything else. Many are actually held as investments. Liquidity is not really an issue here.
You are suggesting we remove risk from the homeowner: risk that his property will go down in value. I don't know where it is the government's jobs--or anyone else's for that matter--to guarantee a return on an asset.
As for houses selling for less than cars, that is a fallacy generally speaking. If you mean in Detroit, they are selling for less than cars because there is no demand. This is why Detroit is contemplating a program to create green spaces and bulldoze these houses. They have no value. Thus your statements about "capital goods" are wrong.