Originally Posted by tony1679
... I don't appreciate people like you. It's people like you waltzing around flaunting how they've been buying up all the houses with any semblance of attainability so that they can either flip them (aka adding a bunch of cheap useless crap to make them seem more appealing) for double the amount it was, or so they can rent (usually pronounced 'scam') people out of more money they don't really have so they can "retire early, buy a condo on the ocean in Orange Beach, and enjoy a steady income stream." Either way, by buying one more house for either purpose, it takes away someone else's dream of owning a home and actually being able to afford it. More and more houses are being bought by fewer and fewer owners. Yet we wonder why housing is so expensive. They aren't commodities, they're literal necessities. Commodities like (most) motor oil are sold at many retailers. This keeps the price down. But when it's a need, like electricity (usually monopolized in most areas) it's usually regulated to prevent price gouging. So why is housing different? We regulate where, how, and why, in fine detail, how houses are built. Why are they not regulated to prevent people like Fawteen from buying homes for a living?
I get it, it's called capitalism. I agree, capitalism is the best system. But there should be a point where the flip/rent game gets regulated. ....
The guy who cuts my hair has about as many rent houses as this guy.
Owning real estate is how the average guy gets wealthy. Not the stock market, real estate.
Regulating that out of existence isn't doing the little guy any favors - it will just make things better for the super wealthy.
And new houses are commodities. As I pointed out earlier, in newly constructed subdivisions, the only reason the house exists is to sell the lots.
Education in this country is a disgrace.
... I don't appreciate people like you. It's people like you waltzing around flaunting how they've been buying up all the houses with any semblance of attainability so that they can either flip them (aka adding a bunch of cheap useless crap to make them seem more appealing) for double the amount it was, or so they can rent (usually pronounced 'scam') people out of more money they don't really have so they can "retire early, buy a condo on the ocean in Orange Beach, and enjoy a steady income stream." Either way, by buying one more house for either purpose, it takes away someone else's dream of owning a home and actually being able to afford it. More and more houses are being bought by fewer and fewer owners. Yet we wonder why housing is so expensive. They aren't commodities, they're literal necessities. Commodities like (most) motor oil are sold at many retailers. This keeps the price down. But when it's a need, like electricity (usually monopolized in most areas) it's usually regulated to prevent price gouging. So why is housing different? We regulate where, how, and why, in fine detail, how houses are built. Why are they not regulated to prevent people like Fawteen from buying homes for a living?
I get it, it's called capitalism. I agree, capitalism is the best system. But there should be a point where the flip/rent game gets regulated. ....
The guy who cuts my hair has about as many rent houses as this guy.
Owning real estate is how the average guy gets wealthy. Not the stock market, real estate.
Regulating that out of existence isn't doing the little guy any favors - it will just make things better for the super wealthy.
And new houses are commodities. As I pointed out earlier, in newly constructed subdivisions, the only reason the house exists is to sell the lots.
Education in this country is a disgrace.