undefined | Better HN

0 pointscodyb2mo ago0 comments

Seems reasonable to me, a very anti Trump individual. Now deliver.

And which of his buddies does this benefit?

I'm trying to think if there will be ramifications to this...

- Obviously forced divestment of all Wall St owned single family homes could impact housing prices which is both the point, but of course... also hurts many families borrowing power and net worth

- I guess that crash could potentially have people paying lots of money for homes that aren't worth that much anymore, which sounds pretty negative

- Of course... wow, would it be nice to be able to afford something in the city I love (which I doubt will be impacted by this)

Of course, no clear plan here. Just Trump saying something, why wasn't the "Trump says" part kept in the headline here?

0 comments

anonymars2mo ago

> also hurts many families borrowing power and net worth

This is part of the crux, isn't it? It's a backbone of families' wealth and positioned as an investment. So there seems to be no winning: either choke off the young trying to buy or crack the nest egg of the old

See also: Bitcoin and the like (wild value fluctuations are the hallmark of a good currency)

Related article of interest: https://archinect.com/news/article/150496266/is-this-swiss-h...

Sohcahtoa822mo ago

> either choke off the young trying to buy or crack the nest egg of the old

The simple fact is, housing can either be affordable xor an investment[0].

Affordable means the prices are flat relative to inflation, which makes it a terrible investment. If it's a good investment, that means the price is going up faster than inflation, which quickly makes it unaffordable.

[0] I want to be clear that I'm referring to housing as an investment to mean buying a house purely for profit purposes, ie, to flip or to rent out. Buying a house to live in, rather than renting the house you live in, can be considered an "investment", but I mean to explicitly exclude that usage of "investment" in this comment.

tbrownaw2mo ago

Sure it can be an investment even with no capital gains, there's still income from charging rent.

1 more reply

tootie2mo ago

Well, there's no explanation for how this will affect any currently owned properties. So maybe it won't do much of anything. And something important to understand about private equity owning homes, is that they tend to descend on specific geos where the supply allows buying in scale. If they are forced to divest, it very well could crash a few cities or towns. And given that the aforementioned supply was heavily bent towards distressed areas, the crash could be brutal.

It will likely have close to zero impact on high-demand areas.

nerdjon2mo ago

I am also trying to think of what else could actually be fueling this, since it sounds very... not republican. Quite literally the opposite.

Like you said that also assumes it actually happens and isn't another incoherent ramble that is conveniently forgotten about or claimed he never said.

I mean if its legit I will cheer it on... but I remain skeptical.

xp842mo ago

It's mostly a made-up issue to begin with - so this would be a popular policy, easy to pass because there won't be much opposition, and it'll be easy to point to and say "We fixed that problem."

usefulcat2mo ago

The R party has changed so radically that it's hardly recognizable any more. As a result, "not republican" is no longer a very meaningful description.

I think the most likely explanation is pretty simple. Whenever people are unhappy with their economic situation, at the ballot box they take it out on whoever is currently in power, logic be damned. Politicians know this.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse