[blurbleblurble]

Maybe they'll get money back in the system, but peoples' debts grow exponentially faster than the wages purported to trickle down. And you don't need to have debt personally to pay for it. My landlord, for example, like many landlords, has a mortgage. We pay her interest and her principle. We pay for the debt she locked the house behind.

[Klockan]

I am not saying that this doesn't increase the wealth gap, just that the money isn't being kept out of the system like the article purports.

[conanbatt]

But u have to consider that the house wouldnt be available without the mortgage, and u would pay a higher rent somewhere else, and the owner might still be amassing the cash to buy it.

Mortgages have a low interest rate in comparison to regular credit, so money that is not put on the mort and into the business economy is an exponential gain.

[uoaei]

You're describing a situation where mortgages are alreadu the norm, and have already raised the price of houses beyond an affordable price at cash precisely because it's relatively easy to take out a mortgage to buy a house at the prices we have today. If it were never so easy to take out a mortgage to buy a house, housing costs would be much lower as the market matched demand to supply.

[conanbatt]

They would be lower prices, but there would be less home-owners.

If the final goal were to reduce prices, you just need to pass a law that all housing is worth 1$ for an unprecedented successful policy.

It is always interesting to me how in Real Estate, people are intelectually sensitive to price increases: as if price increments were a sign of things going awry. More often than not its the opposite: job creation in a city raises rents which is a net good (i.e. SF and Seattle). Or people moving out of their parents home earlier.

It is senseless to look at the price of one thing and focus on that as a measure of well-being. After all, a man in the 20's would look at our salaries and say we are all filthy rich.