An investment portfolio spreads your capital in hundreds of different places, and sure, you're hoarding wealth, but unless you're doing billionaire style off-shoring, you're also cycling your money away from yourself.
-
-
Replying to @OwenAdamsYT @arthur_affect
But directly owning property to rent isn't spreading your capital, it funnels other people's capital directly to you, while also turning a limited but essential resource into a speculator's market.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OwenAdamsYT @arthur_affect
So yeah, Option 2 might mean you end up with room for five people all to yourself, technical depriving four people of homes, or Option 3 means you gave four people a home but made wealth from it, but only Option 1 means you extracted someone else's wealth directly them to you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OwenAdamsYT @arthur_affect
And that distinction isn't invalid because the other options also, by necessity, mean some wealth has passed to you because options 2 or 3 both involve mitigation. Option 1 doesn't, and multiplies when career landlording is introduced.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OwenAdamsYT
I don't really think it is mitigation, it just feels like mitigation Like if you're talking about the housing market as a whole, let's be real, how is 2 not worse for prospective tenants than 1, even if I charged extortionate rent
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
From a strictly market-based perspective, not offering the room for rent at all is charging infinite rent
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
Yeah, real life is messier than an econ 101 graph, and selling someone on a bad deal they thought they could afford but they couldn't is worse than just not making a deal at all Even so In tight markets, it really isn't just a "technicality", 2 directly raises everyone's rent
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
I don't doubt that 2 raises people's rent, I just think Option 1 *also* raises people's rent as long as enough people want to do it, and only has any benefits over Option 2 if you also establish that you won't rent to families over a certain size.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OwenAdamsYT
The more people who do Option 1, the lower the rent gets I mean I know life is more complicated than Econ 101 but not THAT much more complicated
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
And wait a minute why is it a good thing if I take option 1 but I limit the family size I'm willing to rent to
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Doesn't the bigger family need the house more? Aren't I screwing the family over just as much if I say "Nah I'm only renting one room to one of my buddies" as if I don't rent it at all
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.