[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.