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 @arthur_affect
While Option 3's flaws all come from the fact the people who want to do Option 1 exist.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OwenAdamsYT @arthur_affect
(I mean, I think all these options suck. My personal solution is let landlords own as many houses as they like but have state regulation of rent, and require them to use an independent accredited property management company.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
On the large scale I think this is pretty clearly one of those areas where just having public housing is a better solution than trying to crack down on regulation of an all-private market
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect
I'll vote for anyone who promises to do both.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.