[pjc50]

The one case where ownership has really shone over the past decades is that it's the only form of leveraged investment that's readily available to the public. In many places an "average" house has "earned" more in appreciation than an average salary every year.

[statusquoantefa]

yes, but the point of my post is that the unwarranted enthusiasm for "home ownership because rent is a waste" leads to political destabilization of sectors of the finance markets. In terms of the point you raise, the "rent is a waste" belief means that your leveraged investment in housing just keeps you on the escalator because, while your investment has appreciated, you would need to roll it over into your next house, i.e. you rarely/never get to treat it as disposible income.

and all the bankruptcies and home foreclosures in an economic downturn shows the cost of high leveraged investing. A better way to achieve leverage is high beta stocks. Beta behaves just like leverage, except it automatically rebalances debt/equity on the way up and down. And the base rate of growth of the stock market is substantially higher, so you are leveraging a higher rate, even though you can't lever as much as a home.

and don't forget, owning a home and living in it as real estate prices rise means that you are "throwing away" higher and higher virtual rents that you would be entitled to collect and which factor into the value of your home.

[tathougies]

Thats often due to ridiculous accredited investor laws designed to make sure the rate of return on capital is greater for the rich than the poor, who are only given government approved and thus lower returning options.

[pjc50]

Those are designed to prevent people from getting scammed, after numerous incidents. Because the absolute best "mark" is someone who thinks he's a sophisticated investor because he's watched some videos on youtube. People like to cite "higher returns" but only after conveniently ignoring all the ones that didn't pan out.

Also, leverage: if you're borrowing money to make an unsecured investment in a scheme, disaster awaits.

[tathougies]

> People like to cite "higher returns" but only after conveniently ignoring all the ones that didn't pan out.

The United States allows 'microfinancing' via kickstarter, where poor people are allowed to give money to new ventures without any expectation of return on the given capital. Meanwhile, the rich get the opportunity to invest for actual returns on capital. Do you think an accredited investor is going to give money on kickstarter when they could offer cash as an investment?

So why is giving money allowed, but spending the same money on acquiring shares not? The answer that 'some people got scammed' does not excuse the fact that people are still allowed to spend the same money today, without consumer protections, while not receiving any benefit. In other words, we have created yet another way to privatize the benefits of new ventures (by only allowing rich people to profit off of them) while socializing the costs (the people asked to contribute to new ventures without any ownership interests via microfinancing platforms). The response that this is for consumer protection is crap, and anyone not blinded by legal confirmation bias can see that

Maximal investment limits based on income are perhaps appropriate, but wholesale banning is morally reprehensible, and a direct contributor to income inequality.