US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2204

On March 24 2020 05:41 ChristianS wrote:

Regarding the bolded: they’re not? Condition of the home is one of the things appraisers use to assess value, with “new” > “like new” >> “used, good condition” etc. (those aren’t official terms, I think they give it a number C1 - C6) if you’re saying you think that term should count for more in an appraisal, I mean, I guess, but appraisers judge that relative to real sales to estimate what real people were willing to pay for. I.e., if an appraiser gives a C3 home $30,000 more than a C4 home that’s (at least in theory) because homebuyers are willing to pay $30,000 more for it.

There’s a broader point, though, I’d probably agree with (although this change would hurt me personally, having bought a home a couple years ago): homeowners automatically getting the money from their property going up in value, even when it’s not because of any improvements they made, doesn’t seem like a great system. Even in free market terms, it doesn’t really create good incentives. The alternative is non-obvious, though. I’ve heard a 100% tax on unearned property value increase proposed, but that would probably create a kind of turbo-charged gentrification problem, and make value assessment an extremely fraught process. People also tend to like homes to act as investments because it’s more broadly accessible than some other forms of investment, so it promotes social mobility.

But if someone had a good scheme to divorce homes-as-dwellings from homes-as-investments, it would probably do a lot to reduce NIMBYism, too.

On March 24 2020 08:04 Nakajin wrote:


I mean I sure want to buy a 30 years old home more then a newly build one, even more a 100 years old home, be it only because they aren't build in the middle of nowhere at 40 minutes in car from downtown.

Houses don't really lose value, if you do the necessary work on them a 100 years old home is not more fragile or less pleasurable to live in then a newly build one, usually they even more interesting since the previous owner probably did some work on them to make it better/prettier/give it some personality.

On March 24 2020 08:31 Nyxisto wrote:


well okay either way they're probably dealing with undocumented people without healthcare in close physical contact so definitely give them masks. This should go for anyone in a security-related job. A prison outbreak would be a nightmare as well.

On March 24 2020 10:16 semantics wrote:



Houses built today are better. They are built to modern standards, modern fire codes, modern electrical codes, modern regional disasters like earthquakes, they are held to much higher standards concerning air quality and air tightness. A modern home doesn't have old wires in the walls, old pipes, old switches etc. A modern home is cheaper to heat and cool and is more comfortable to live in because of that. Old houses don't have the same integration for the modern world with ethernet, cable, electrical. Old houses that aren't heavily renovated and modernized should lose their worth, and in certain cases they should be worthless because they just aren't up to date to modern safety standards.

On March 24 2020 10:46 GreenHorizons wrote:


Or they could be shut down as a non-essential service that puts people at unnecessary risk (as well as being horrific on a humanitarian level).

On March 24 2020 05:41 ChristianS wrote:
There’s a broader point, though, I’d probably agree with (although this change would hurt me personally, having bought a home a couple years ago): homeowners automatically getting the money from their property going up in value, even when it’s not because of any improvements they made, doesn’t seem like a great system. Even in free market terms, it doesn’t really create good incentives. The alternative is non-obvious, though. I’ve heard a 100% tax on unearned property value increase proposed, but that would probably create a kind of turbo-charged gentrification problem, and make value assessment an extremely fraught process. People also tend to like homes to act as investments because it’s more broadly accessible than some other forms of investment, so it promotes social mobility.

But if someone had a good scheme to divorce homes-as-dwellings from homes-as-investments, it would probably do a lot to reduce NIMBYism, too.

Arizona man dies after ingesting substance touted by President Trump

https://ktar.com/story/3040369/arizona-man-dies-after-ingesting-substance-touted-by-president-trump/

Hospital officials are warning against home remedies for COVID-19 after a metro Phoenix man died and his wife was hospitalized when they ingested a chemical touted by President Donald Trump as a possible coronavirus treatment.

During a press conference last week, and again Monday, Trump mentioned that chloroquine, a drug long used to prevent malaria, had shown the potential to combat COVID-19.

The substance, also known as chloroquine phosphate, hasn’t gone through rigorous scientific testing as a coronavirus treatment.

The Valley couple, both in their 60s, were concerned about symptoms and reportedly saw information online suggesting aquarium products could be used to combat coronavirus.

“Which is absolutely wrong and unfortunately potentially dangerous,” Brooks said.

He added that it appears the couple ingested the equivalent of several days worth of the compound as it would have been prescribed as medicine.

They felt sick within 30 minutes, Brooks said. The man died shortly after arriving at an emergency room. The woman was resuscitated and is being cared for at a Phoenix Banner hospital.

On March 24 2020 10:58 ChristianS wrote:

But home values are determined by what people are willing to pay. Are you just saying homebuyers should value modern code compliance more highly? Or that someone should somehow force these homebuyers to be less willing to buy old homes?

On March 24 2020 13:01 semantics wrote:

People pay to live in slums because there is nothing else. Just because someone will pay for it doesn't mean it's good for society. I'm just suggesting policies should discourage a speculative middle-men in specifically the individual home market. A middle man should absorb risk for a profit, the risk associated here is the risk of paying for the house which maybe more people could afford if the middle man wasn't increasing the overall cost of the housing market to begin with by taking supply.

On March 24 2020 13:53 Mohdoo wrote:
Can anyone explain to me why I should want companies to be allowed to perform stock buy backs?

On March 24 2020 14:17 ChristianS wrote:

Oh, if you’re saying we should make policies to discourage house flipping and similar activity (anybody buying cheap property, adding improvements, and selling it), I’m sympathetic. They have some natural advantages over normal homebuyers I always thought should be eliminated, e.g. being able to buy homes for cash that aren’t for sale to normal homebuyers using mortgages. Maybe someone who knows more about housing market policy could explain why that advantage should be preserved; it seems to me house flippers make housing even more expensive and policy should make sure they have no advantages over normal homebuyers (maybe even disadvantages).

That still won’t create the kind of depreciation you’re saying homes should have, though. As long as homebuyers don’t dislike an old home enough to not buy it, it won’t lose value like you want it to. Since homebuyers don’t care that much about modern electrical codes, etc., the homes keep their value. In my personal experience, older houses are still plenty nice to live in. I’ve lived in a 1940’s house and a house built last year; it was annoying sometimes that a lot of outlets didn’t have three prongs, and modern energy standards keep the power bill a lot lower, but “old house” just isn’t that big a drawback, at least if it’s well-maintained.

On March 24 2020 15:18 LG)Sabbath wrote:

It allows companies to regain control over themselves and also to reduce spending on dividends. Of course, doing this with bailout money is kinda scummy.

On March 24 2020 11:20 Belisarius wrote:

Sure, but in that case the issue isn't that they shouldn't have masks, it's that you believe they shouldn't be working. The masks are secondary.

If they need to continue doing their job, it's very reasonable for them to have masks to do it. If they don't, they obviously would not need them.

On March 24 2020 15:19 Belisarius wrote:

I don't see flippers as a significant problem. They are at least creating value by making genuine improvements, unlike someone who buys a crappy house and rents it out while the land appreciates. There's an element of gentrification, but in the long run I'd rather improve affordability by encouraging people to knock down crappy houses and build medium-density, rather than keep them until they fall down on their own.

Cash purchases certainly are a factor favouring the rich, but generally I think it's small. It's a negotiating chip worth a couple of % max. Perhaps this is different in the US, but it's pretty rare to see sales requiring cash here. If you can get an extra 30k by courting a wider pool of buyers, I think most sellers choose to do so. I suppose you could tax cash more heavily, but then you also hit anyone trying to purchase after a previous sale and a paid-off mortgage, like retirees downsizing. I'd much rather pressure non-primary residences, empty residences and rapid resales if I really hated flipping.

I think the situation for trying to force depreciation is similar. A blunt instrument strategy like increasing tax on older homes seems like it would produce a lot of collateral damage for questionable gains. If there are specific issues like old electrical wiring it would make more sense to target those by eg. requiring houses to meet XY standard at sale for the contract to be recognised. A strong ETS would address most issues around insulation and efficiency. As you said, a well-maintained older house can very comfortable, and even efficient with the right modifications, plus they're often better built than the copy-paste mcmansions filling greenfields sites anyway.

On March 25 2020 01:32 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
I have a question regarding American politics.

So a part of the general economic crash right now is the oil price being dumpstered by Saudi Arabia and Russia which crippled American oil producers who had heavy debt after massive investment.

I haven't seen much discussion about this. At the time, at least to me, the timing seemed to be Russia deciding to kick the US in the balls while they were down with Corona. And then SA responded with actions that of course hurts Russia but also just so happens to really punish their closest "ally".

It seems US media and politicians just accepted this. Maybe there wasn't that much to do about it but even if Russia would gain from SA not flooding the market during a sharp decline in consumption it is a pretty shit timing from a supposedly close ally.

On March 25 2020 02:42 Sermokala wrote:

The US has accepted it because they literally don't have to care about it. Its certainly a boom market but the entire boom has been built on the backs of debt to investment groups. But what is all that debt built on? The US dollar. If the oil being traded by the Saudis increases its still oil being traded by dollars. That means debt is cheap as dirt and every investment group is happy to hold onto the debt they have for when the market turns around and the oil fields can (and they will beacuse its oil) produce again.

Welcome to the Petrodollar.

On March 25 2020 04:08 Vivax wrote:


Debt is never cheap. It's the definition of kicking a can down the road that keeps getting bigger. If you pay off yours, someone else you made money from won't be able to. All it does during bailout bonanza is enrich those who already made enough money.

As for oil, the loans you give to other nations as a producer are something they have to pay the producers industry margin off with higher taxes on it, is how I read this chart.

https://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/data_graphs/333.htm

So a lower oil price begets more sovereign debt to cover for lost tax income, reduces industry profit margins, and is generally undesirable to the western bloc.

On March 25 2020 04:17 Sermokala wrote:

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of debt and currency in the modern world. Yes you are paying interest on those loans but as long as you have a profit margin above the cost of those loans as a result of taking those loans then the loans are free money you have made from taking them out. The investment groups (admittedly I may be biased because my retirement is in one of these groups) has assets on the ground in the form of these oil drills and the land the oil is on. Keeping on and taking more debt with the intent to pay off those debts once the price of oil comes back up is a smart move when you're thinking 5-10 years out.

The loans aren't for other nations they are for our nation. They don't take out loans from our nation to buy and sell oil they buy and sell dollars to buy and sell our oil. that increases the value of the dollar and increases the volume of dollars in the market thus somehow (I'm not a finance expert so I can't explain the exact functions) making dollars worth a lot more against other currencies.

Especially with the fed lowering the interest rate to zero debt is basically free at this moment when what you are financing with that debt is literally oil.

The "western bloc" doesn't like less oil prices as much as any oil producer doesn't like oil prices. But the thing America won in the cold war was the petrodollar so things work differently for us then the rest of the world. Its truely something that is american exceptionalism that we can treat debt like its just a number.