Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by arcticbull 2031 days ago
No, it’s well documented. [1] That data is captured by the BLS.

> By that definition Bitcoin is a neutral asset class as well since it's deflationary nature is also artificially imposed.

Deflationary is not neutral, it’s deflationary. That’s an artificial imposition of directionality. Further that’s only in isolation. Once you consider the economy expanding and contracting around it, externalities, shocks and the addition and removal of market participants - and loss of coins - its claim to neutrality is like that of a baby fighting Muhammad Ali. It requires positive control to match market conditions. It’s only neutral if you pretend the rest of the world and the economy don’t exist.

[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/fee.org/articles/new-homes-toda...
1 comments
atomi 2031 days ago
I don't follow you.

Normally, real estate markets are tracked in isolation.

link
arcticbull 2031 days ago
What I was saying is that on average real estate is not deflationary, it tracks inflation, and there’s data to back that. In specific instances of markets where it is deflationary it’s not due to intrinsic qualities of the asset class but rather externalities.
link
atomi 2030 days ago
Fine, but we generally don't average out values nationally to price homes.

We don't take home values from the Detroit market, Beverly Hills market and San Antonio market to price a house in New York.

Real estate is deflationary because each asset is unique - like fine art or a 1 in millions baseball card misprint.

link
arcticbull 2029 days ago
> Fine, but we generally don't average out values nationally to price homes.

Not home prices, but the trend in home prices. I think we do, that's why the BLS is tracking this number. I don't work in the industry though, so I can't say for sure.

> Real estate is deflationary because each asset is unique - like fine art or a 1 in millions baseball card misprint.

Respectfully I disagree. Real estate is only deflationary if you're looking at the square footage on the ground alone, but if you can build up a practically unlimited amount (and we really, really can) then it's not a relevant thing to look at. Each square foot on the ground turns into more and more square feet of real estate over time as you build higher and higher.

link
atomi 2029 days ago
> but if you can build up

And those at higher locations will be more costly because they'd be both desirable and scarce.

If your theory were true all homes would be priced on some square footage price constant. They're not.

link