I do. However, what we have seen is a multinational company that has trillions in assets able to deploy those assets to be able to outbid everyone its not a fair fight at all. Its a slippery slope allowing them to do because it only makes people further dependent on corporations for even their housing. This isnt like buying an apartment building or even building the house those all are set and designed for individuals to by them at the end of the chain.
I was thinking... there is artificial scarcity in the market. Its a very good place to park money since it is insane to do so in many other assets. Banning them seems to me to be a pretty blunt approach and those types of approached tend to have bad consequences.
And plenty of home owners LIKE the cost of housing being high because of how they view their house. As a savings account. That is the deeper problem.
In fact I'm sure that's why Blackstone started this post 2008. Single family homes are a store of value. Whether that is as it should be is another question. It is an entity acting in its own self interest.
Indeed. And if I don't like it, there ought to be a law!
It gets old watching the same movie over and over again. State intervention in markets causes massive problem. Solution? More intervention. The cause? Capitalism.
Big businsesses can outbid consumers on almost everything.
One thing that has traditionally held that back is diseconomies of scale. Supposedly, a big business wouldn't be able to manage this big portfolio of real estate that easily, since the markets are highly localized and physical presence is required to monitor the condition and status of the property.
But it's possible that technology is making these diseconomies of scale go away, making it easier and easier for big businesses to manage a huge, diverse portfolio of varied assets.
Blackrock has the money and resources to manage owning tens of millions of homes with ease. You divide up the homes based on locations and then leverage property management companies
They don't understand many principles in economics and therefore are tossed by the waves of the fiat money printer which is the root issue. That and housing regulations.
People live in homes, not corporations
People use real-estate as a savings vehicle. Normal people start and own corporations too. There's a double edged sword here that many are ignoring.
If housing prices crator but we don't have sound money where do people put their savings? The stock market? Maybe that needs more regulation too?
Maybe we need 10% higher taxes. Maybe a wealth tax. Republicans are all over the place. I was one for decades. It was untenable for me. The backflips they do.
They aren't leftists at least but they don't have a solid anchor so they drift with the left. And Trump really isn't even much of a traditional Republican.
Indeed. At least he's entertaining to watch and I do enjoy the triggering. If anyone ever had a doubt about the wall of opposition someone that wanted to radically change anything would face they should no longer.
I think back to Ron Paul's campaign and what he said he wanted to do. He would have been killed before he could have shut down the federal agencies that were on his list. Trump's goals are a pale comparison and you would think he was absolutely insane. DOGE was nothing compared to what a real liberty based leader would attempt.
Not speaking of the two as on the same side but both sought to be change agents. Paul is ideological, Trump is not. He's practical and works on instinct. Sometimes they are good but more often they are not.
Political headlines move markets even when they’re not fully clear and yes the quote about Xi is separate, Trump teasing policy can still spook investors even if it wasn’t exactly what he said.
Yeah. That's right. It could happen. It's just an investment. Would people feel differently if Trump proclaimed that corporations should not be allowed to invest in bitcoin? Come on. Can't we all at least pretend we support a free market?
When massive institutional players with access to virtually unlimited capital start competing for single family homes the average buyer never really stands a chance. It shifts the dynamic from housing as a personal achievement to housing as a financial asset class and that fundamentally changes the purpose homes serve in society.
The danger is that this practice can accelerate a trend where more and more people become long term renters not by choice but because ownership has been priced out of reach. That dependency on corporations for something as basic as shelter undermines the traditional pathway to building wealth and stability for families.
If policymakers are serious about addressing housing affordability they will need to look beyond interest rates and zoning laws and address who is allowed to own what type of property. The conversation is not just about supply and demand it is about the fairness of allowing entities with billions or trillions behind them to compete directly with working families for something that was meant to be lived in not leveraged.
Thank God this is something LONG overdue and could really help slow down housing prices increasing
I thought Republicans believed in at least some semblance of a free market?
I do. However, what we have seen is a multinational company that has trillions in assets able to deploy those assets to be able to outbid everyone its not a fair fight at all. Its a slippery slope allowing them to do because it only makes people further dependent on corporations for even their housing. This isnt like buying an apartment building or even building the house those all are set and designed for individuals to by them at the end of the chain.
So do you believe in rent control? If not, why not?
I like how you think
Why are companies like this buying houses though? I mean, they could do a lot of things with their money.
I think because they want to.
LOL,
I was thinking... there is artificial scarcity in the market. Its a very good place to park money since it is insane to do so in many other assets. Banning them seems to me to be a pretty blunt approach and those types of approached tend to have bad consequences.
And plenty of home owners LIKE the cost of housing being high because of how they view their house. As a savings account. That is the deeper problem.
In fact I'm sure that's why Blackstone started this post 2008. Single family homes are a store of value. Whether that is as it should be is another question. It is an entity acting in its own self interest.
Indeed. And if I don't like it, there ought to be a law!
It gets old watching the same movie over and over again. State intervention in markets causes massive problem. Solution? More intervention. The cause? Capitalism.
Big businsesses can outbid consumers on almost everything.
One thing that has traditionally held that back is diseconomies of scale. Supposedly, a big business wouldn't be able to manage this big portfolio of real estate that easily, since the markets are highly localized and physical presence is required to monitor the condition and status of the property.
But it's possible that technology is making these diseconomies of scale go away, making it easier and easier for big businesses to manage a huge, diverse portfolio of varied assets.
See #1404356 for an interesting discussion.
Blackrock has the money and resources to manage owning tens of millions of homes with ease. You divide up the homes based on locations and then leverage property management companies
They don't understand many principles in economics and therefore are tossed by the waves of the fiat money printer which is the root issue. That and housing regulations.
People use real-estate as a savings vehicle. Normal people start and own corporations too. There's a double edged sword here that many are ignoring.
If housing prices crator but we don't have sound money where do people put their savings? The stock market? Maybe that needs more regulation too?
Maybe we need 10% higher taxes. Maybe a wealth tax. Republicans are all over the place. I was one for decades. It was untenable for me. The backflips they do.
They aren't leftists at least but they don't have a solid anchor so they drift with the left. And Trump really isn't even much of a traditional Republican.
Trump is a populist hes not a Republican at all. His meddling in the economy and having the US take ownership on whims is WILD.
Indeed. At least he's entertaining to watch and I do enjoy the triggering. If anyone ever had a doubt about the wall of opposition someone that wanted to radically change anything would face they should no longer.
I think back to Ron Paul's campaign and what he said he wanted to do. He would have been killed before he could have shut down the federal agencies that were on his list. Trump's goals are a pale comparison and you would think he was absolutely insane. DOGE was nothing compared to what a real liberty based leader would attempt.
Not speaking of the two as on the same side but both sought to be change agents. Paul is ideological, Trump is not. He's practical and works on instinct. Sometimes they are good but more often they are not.
no dude, are you even Republican?? lol
Political headlines move markets even when they’re not fully clear and yes the quote about Xi is separate, Trump teasing policy can still spook investors even if it wasn’t exactly what he said.
More of this! Though he has his big beautiful bill bumping up that inflation too. $40 billion deficit here we come…
Yes, he just makes a lot of shit up, but this has lots of populist appeal.
I agree midterms are this year. Expect a lot of MAGA policies start to get implemented
And, don't expect it to be any of the good ones.
Maybe good time to buy Blackstone. There's no way this passes in any meaningful way.
Blackstone is a symptom. Not the problem.
I was waiting for the market to blow up and blackstone would be left holding the bag hahaha.
Yeah. That's right. It could happen. It's just an investment. Would people feel differently if Trump proclaimed that corporations should not be allowed to invest in bitcoin? Come on. Can't we all at least pretend we support a free market?
Exactly! Blackstone doesn’t have unlimited money at some point this buying will end
Fix the money. Or fix free money's propensity to find a nice big store of value. Whatever works.
Wait... "Build baby, build" was only about the wall?
Yes he does. Clearly.
When massive institutional players with access to virtually unlimited capital start competing for single family homes the average buyer never really stands a chance. It shifts the dynamic from housing as a personal achievement to housing as a financial asset class and that fundamentally changes the purpose homes serve in society.
The danger is that this practice can accelerate a trend where more and more people become long term renters not by choice but because ownership has been priced out of reach. That dependency on corporations for something as basic as shelter undermines the traditional pathway to building wealth and stability for families.
If policymakers are serious about addressing housing affordability they will need to look beyond interest rates and zoning laws and address who is allowed to own what type of property. The conversation is not just about supply and demand it is about the fairness of allowing entities with billions or trillions behind them to compete directly with working families for something that was meant to be lived in not leveraged.
Thanks for the robot perspective on this