Something I’ve been thinking about:
Banning mortgages for houses.
I feel this would cause houses to drop 90%+ because people would only offer what they can afford to buy in full. Houses would lose value as they age unless fixed. And they would also get cheaper as they get easier to make.
I feel people won’t invest in houses if they know they will decrease in value and potentialy wipe out any gains if fixed.
Does this make sense? or am I missing something?
#asknostr
Login to reply
Replies (4)
Loans.
Without mortgages, people would just turn to the next best accessible loan.
In fact the most convenient and cheapest way to get credit that could be used to buy a house would be accessible to only the most privileged, so you'd just see assets become further from reach from the average person and rental homes would be the norm, industrialised since only big businesses, not even small businesses, could afford homes now.
I think you're basically back to full reserve banking. Mortgages serve a really good purpose. You pay more in the future for something now.
The kicker is that banks used to have to select people eligible for a mortgage very carefully. If banks had to fully back every loan, we're good. The problem was people would default and the bank would go bust. But also in that case the CEO and all shareholders would be financially responsible. The legal entity known as the corporation also distorts this natural flow.
Banning Usury maybe but not mortgages because without mortgages houses couldn't be built really, I mean yes people could save up but the rate at which housing would be built, or the quality of housing would be reduced.
Borrowing money now allows housing as a good to be built now, and borrow against the future, people need houses now, not in 30 years when they could afford to get one built.
Even Dave Ramsey who's the most prolific anti-debt person in the world makes an exception of sorts for mortgages.
I get that you're upset about housing prices, and artifical demand driven by cheap loans but the bigger issue is zoning laws which restrict supply.
You're right that it's a lot easier to buy a house with money you'll have decades in the future than it is now and that that's weird.
The bigger problem is that people own more property than they live in as an investment. I mean it's kind of circular.
#bitcoinfixesthis by being a better investment than property. Investors will start opting for bitcoin instead of property, lowering demand and increasing supply. That bubble will burst. Those holding bitcoin will see price appreciation as housing investment money moves into bitcoin, and many will be able to buy houses with bitcoin.
I don't think we need to make any other laws (like banning mortgages), but just need to promote the best money ever to have existed.