[dmingod666]

As a person holding a certain amount of currency, the last thing you want is the govt to print more. That is essentially the govt putting a hand in your pocket and taking away cash by diluting what you already have.

Is land a bad thing to buy because they are not making more of it?

I'm sure you know you can exchange those numbers for other numbers that show up in your bank if you're inclined..

[Godel_unicode]

As a person who makes goods/provides services, what you want is for the government to ensure there is enough money for others to buy/hire your good/service.

As a person who wants to buy a house but doesn't have the full purchase price in liquid dollars, the thing you want is for the government to give lenders access to low-cost money so they can then lend it to you at low rates so you can afford the principal+interest on your loan.

As a person with savings to invest, you want to know that the bonds you're buying will be paid back with some interest to balance the risk of higher-yield stocks/bonds.

[dmingod666]

Sure, you have a valid point. However, a tangential argument can be made that, exactly due to banks lending money to buy houses, houses have essentially been priced out for regular people..

If you see educational costs, at one point in the 70s I think, the govt decided to offer loans so that students wouldn't need to do a job on the side to fund their education. Now it's ballooned to become such a mess..

[Godel_unicode]

They have absolutely not, with the noted exception of a few popular urban areas which house a relatively small minority of the population, been priced out for regular people.

The home ownership rate in the United States is 65.8%. San Francisco. Is. Not. Normal.

[hannasanarion]

The purpose of land is not exchange for goods and services.

The purpose of money is not so that you can "hodl".

I swear, this speculation bubble has melted y'alls brains.

[dmingod666]

I don't 'hodl' either stock or bitcoin btw.