[claytongulick]

> How can you in good conscience celebrate making a tremendous profits exploiting the fact that people cannot afford a basic need?

I'm completely missing your point.

If I buy property in a developing area because I think it's cool, and I live there for years and am part of the community and watch it grow around me, and years later decide to sell - I took an early risk, don't I deserve to recognize the rewards from that risk?

If it was a bad risk and the area went to hell, and I lost money - is that ok?

But making money isn't?

Should home builders not be allowed to make money because housing is a basic human need?

Should we not be allowed to build luxury homes that cost more because we could have built multiple cheaper ones with the same money?

What should the rules be, in your opinion?

[vineyardmike]

> I took an early risk, don't I deserve to recognize the rewards from that risk?

In your mind, how much of the increase in value of housing is due to “early risk” paying off in a valuable community vs an increase in overall demand without an increase in supply?

When the nation sees the housing supply increase slower than the population, that’s not a risky investment. It’s musical chairs where you pay to win.

[claytongulick]

Are you actually involved with real estate investing?

I'm asking because it really doesn't seem like you have much experience with it based on your comments.

Housing prices go through bubble-burst cycles regularly.

National trends are interesting, vaguely, but local markets are everything, and fluctuate wildly based on many factors.

We get into serious trouble when we have external forces skew the market, like in 2008.

Covid years + essentially free loans (nearly zero interest) are another example.

It caused a bubble that's going to cause a lot of pain as the market corrects.

I'll be part of the solution - I'll buy properties (most likely next year) that are in distress, rehab them, and then sell them later.

According to you, though, that's somehow wrong. I should just let foreclosures happen, let houses rot empty - because profit is wrong?

[vineyardmike]

Hmm don’t think I said profit is wrong. I said owning an asset in limited supply with growing demand and then selling later is not particularly risky. I made no moral claim.

I’ve seen HGTV. I’m familiar with house flipping, I know that the markets are local. I don’t really need an economics lesson to understand that low interest rates spurred buying. Don’t kid yourself into thinking it takes a genius investor to buy something in low supply relative to demand and resell it for more.

[claytongulick]

> I’ve seen HGTV

Guess I should be learning from you then.

[satvikpendem]

Singapore has a good model that allows most of its citizenry to own homes. Basically, it competes with home builders directly. If they don't want to build, the government will do so.

https://youtu.be/3dBaEo4QplQ?si=r_3FWkZJLBvWAxJ_

[refurb]

The Singapore government won’t build in advance so demand is far higher than supply so there is a lottery. Oh and you have to married. Singles wait until 35 and can only buy a 1 bed.

If you don’t win the lottery you can always buy resale which is close to $1M for a 2 bedroom place.

Oh and it’s a 99 year lease. After 99 years you give it back to the government and get $0.

[mixmastamyk]

Oh, folks want to build, that’s for sure. They’ve been prevented, and sometimes still are.

[satvikpendem]

In Singapore, the state has vast eminent domain powers and is exempt from all zoning laws, which is covered in the video. I'm not sure that would ever fly in the US.

[mixmastamyk]

Yes, would have to fall on the state, as in US State, not the domain of the Feds.

Being a nationwide problem, they probably wouldn't be able to solve the problem. Because solving the problem means everyone moves to your state.