The western united states maintained its wilderness areas through a culture of conservationism that isn't remotely respected by the new arrivals. I've spent the last two decades watching paradise be paved for a parking lot.
The wilderness areas were maintained by not having a lot of people. US added 100M people in the last 40 years, and a lot of them seem to like the Western states' scenery, terrain, and weather.
I suggest without proof that the west could accommodate more people without adverse effects on the environment if construction preferences were different.
The new construction methods, building types, and communal land management strategies that are preferred by implants have an outsized effect on the environment. Compare the new construction in Vail to the older buildings, which can still be seen in smaller towns.
I would prefer building preferences to become more harmonious with the natural environment instead of less.
I agree it's certainly possible. But I've seen a lot of housing developments since the 1980s in the Western cities' suburbs that are at odds with conservationism. I think it happened to not be felt until relatively recently because there was some "slack" available due to lower populations to allow those large lots to exist and not feel crowded or encroach on the environment.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure there is a politically tenable solution since everyone likes their own personal vehicles, and for that you need a driveway or garage, and for that you need space and roads, and that does not scale well with population increase.
12% of US detached housing is vacant. Property is being held by speculators who are betting that interest rates will fall and increase the value of property. No amount of supply will meet the demand of an asset class that increases in value by 6% a month.
Interest rates are at historic lows. The Fed rate going negative has been discussed in months gone by. Lender money to borrow is a little tougher as with rates so low they may keep it in equities, or buy GME or Bitcoin where they have higher upside potential.
Buying GME to offset losses in real estate is the most 2021 thing I've heard. I don't know if I should laugh or cry.
The only thing I have to say is that I would expect the government to push more federally backed mortgage loans at their preferred interest rates if they sense a slowdown in private lending. Heaven forbid markets correct themselves.
Does it require changes in rates? Interest rates determine absolute property prices, by way of per month payment prices, but it’s the latter that should have primacy, right? What people can afford to pay each month.
Right. Property values are highly correlated with incomes, because that determines what purchasers or renters can afford. Interest rates determine how much of a loan a purchaser can service. So, low rates allow purchasers to bid up the price of assets, which effectively transfers money from borrowers to current asset owners.
Since property prices are highly correlated with incomes, and income changes are correlated with inflation and productivity gains, the only lever that can be pulled to change real estate prices is the interest rate.
For property to become more affordable, the interest rate has to rise. Since that would cause property values to drop, many people who recently purchased property would find themselves owing more to a mortgage lender than their property is now worth, and it would likely remain that way for a decade. Many of those people were stretching to afford their purchase before, with 3% down programs and half their monthly income or more going to service a loan. We are already at a record high level of mortgages in forbearance.
So, the interest rate cannot be allowed to rise. The only people that would benefit are people with a decent income, no debt, and substantial savings, who do not yet own an asset class. Almost no-one, and mostly young people. But low interest rates push money to seek higher returns, which causes investment to become speculative instead of seeking lower-risk capital improvements. This reduces future productivity gains, which lowers growth long-term.
In other words, the future is Japanification. Society will gladly sacrifice its children and future for a few more years of fun bucks. A decade long recession is, I believe, inevitable, and will happen after the next asset crash.
Everything you’re talking about only relates to the list price. I don’t know the right name for it. The value of the property. What you’d see on the for sale sign. You’re right about different levers on that.
The problem is that that’s not the price that matters in this particular setting. What matters are the monthly payments. If you change rates, the list price will change but monthly payments won’t.
You know, you're not wrong. Inflated asset prices can last a long time. Fundamentals win in the end, but the end can take longer than a person's career.
"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent".
"When the music plays, you have to dance."
I'm just suggesting not to speculate with borrowed money.
I would surmise the traditional belief of western philosophy thusly:
1) I do not have perfect knowledge.
2) Good, or at least better, ideas will implicitly produce better results over long periods.
3) It is immoral to control the lives of others.
4) Therefore, people can argue for ideas they find compelling, and people are free to choose what they think is best.
5) Furthermore, people must bear the consequences of their decisions.
A further part of this system was that it was necessary for society to be structured such that individual choices do not have an outsized impact on others. This required that the apparatus of the state have specific constraints. It was quite a remarkable belief system, and much has been written about it over centuries.
Okay, but we still have systems in place that routinely make decisions based on determinations about factual statements. There are obvious ones, like determining whether someone murdered someone else, or determining how much money someone made for the purposes of taxation. We don’t just throw up our hands and say “sure, maybe there is objective reality out there, but even if there is, who could possibly decide what is real?”
> A further part of this system was that it was necessary for society to be structured such that individual choices do not have an outsized impact on others
The interest rate is the "price" of money. Central banks controlling the interest rate effectively practice price controls for debt. Much has been written about price controls, but fundamentally they create inefficiencies. Unfathomable amounts of debt have been completely misallocated in pursuit of whatever the goal of interest rate control has been.
The Forbes list of 100 wealthiest people will exclude people that ask to be excluded. All of the excluded people have inherited their wealth and all of them are so wealthy they would push out anyone without inherited wealth.
