Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[anewaname]

...

I find it absolutely hilarious when an anarcho-capitalist wants to transfer the ownership from the state to the workers and socialists scream - "over our dead bodies!"

Consider what happened when the USSR dissolved and businesses became "privately owned"... The bulk of the workers lost out greatly and only a few people gained wealth. The Argentinian workers realize that this would happen to them as well.

The airline was nationalized in ‘08, and hasn’t made a profit since. It’s projected to lose more than $100 million this year, and improvement over last years losses of ~$250 million.

Privatizing it will cost jobs, benefits, working conditions, and the consumer as they cut unprofitable routes.

Wasn't it nationalized because privatization failed? Even though the nationalized airline operates at a loss, how much does the overall economy benefit from a stable and safe airline system? It is likely that there would be more benefit to staying nationalized, but to find the places where politicians were involved in establishing contracts for supplies and infrastructure maintenance (the less safety-vital aspects of these contracts), and to seek competition.

[McTraveller]

This is all just an artifact of forcing companies to keep their profits and losses "scoped" to their company.  If a company like an airline could treat the benefits to society as its own gain, even if it was spending more money than it made, then that value could be treated as profit due to that company.

Basically this is externalized profit, which is the oft-neglected twin of externalized costs.  That is, benefits to society not realized by the companies or individuals providing them, just as there are costs to society not realized by the companies or individuals incurring them.

Until we figure out a way to account for these costs and benefits other than money flow, we'll continue to have this situation.

[Strongpoint]

Consider what happened when the USSR dissolved and businesses became "privately owned"... The bulk of the workers lost out greatly and only a few people gained wealth. The Argentinian workers realize that this would happen to them as well.

Yes, but in the post-USSR no one transferred anything directly to workers. (at least in Ukraine) There were privatization certificates but they didn't work in this way.

[McTraveller]

I am seeing more articles lately about how renting is more affordable than trying to save and buying a house.

In an inflationary environment, I don't understand this line of thinking.  If you can manage to buy a house, any house, how is that long-term not a better use of money? Granted that's a big "if" and a challenge for many individuals.

Given: buying a house (at least in the US) locks in your payments for as much as 30 years. This part of your housing cost is therefore immune from inflation.  Only potentially taxes, utilities, insurance, and repairs are subject to inflation.

How can renting, which can have prices increase faster than inflation every year, be better than trying to own?

What am I missing?  Is the problem really just the up-front cost?

[hector13]

I think house buying is at the lowest rate for the last 30 years in the US.

If my house value is anything to go by, I can see why.

We got a home equity loan to cover some home improvements, and the house had increased in value by 50% in about 3.5 years, despite the only addition at that point being guttering.

[McTraveller]

But that's exactly what I mean - if you can actually buy a house - it's way better than renting, isn't it?

I mean if home values go up, but you have a fixed mortgage (and why wouldn't you!?), then in inflation-adjusted terms you are paying less and less per month for an appreciating asset.

If you are paying rent - you are likely paying increasing amounts of cash with no asset accrual.  I mean unless your area literally has no available homes to buy, and no land to buy to build-to-suit, I can't imagine how renting is better than buying.

I mean isn't that one of the pillars of how younger generations are getting systemically harmed, because there is no available equity to buy, and the property owners are extracting rents instead?

[Criptfeind]

We can't see the vague "articles" you're talking about, so there could be an issue with communication here. But "more affordable" doesn't mean "better" and from just what you've said it sounds like they say the first but then you're wondering why they are saying the second.

[nenjin]

But that's exactly what I mean - if you can actually buy a house - it's way better than renting, isn't it?

I mean if home values go up, but you have a fixed mortgage (and why wouldn't you!?), then in inflation-adjusted terms you are paying less and less per month for an appreciating asset.

If you are paying rent - you are likely paying increasing amounts of cash with no asset accrual.  I mean unless your area literally has no available homes to buy, and no land to buy to build-to-suit, I can't imagine how renting is better than buying.

I mean isn't that one of the pillars of how younger generations are getting systemically harmed, because there is no available equity to buy, and the property owners are extracting rents instead?

Because you have to pay a mortgage on said house. That's why renting is becoming the cheaper option.

It comes down to the interest rate you secured. If you secured an interest rate below 5% (let's just say) your monthly payments for your mortgage, insurance and utilities comes out to about the same as renting.

When you secured a rate above 5%, now your monthly payments really start to balloon when combined with the vastly overpriced houses. Look up the term "house poor." It means you own a house but the payments are crushing you and you're barely making ends meet. For reference, last year rates peaked at around 7.5% and averaged like 6.7% or so.

Everyone that financed at below 5% who says they don't understand why people can't afford homes can go suck all the dicks. That includes fucking boomers who wail about having to pay 8% on their *gasp* $25,000 loan in the 70s, like their numbers are even remotely comparable to what's going on now.

And if you think owning a home and watching its value increase means it was worth it.....let me introduce you to all the other home owners sitting on vastly overvalued properties hoping some ignorant first time home buyer is going to come in and make them rich. Your house is worth fuck all if no one is willing to buy it at the price the market says it's worth.

[McTraveller]

Hrm. Perhaps. I'm looking at things like:

this
and
this

These articles only seem to focus on average (which is skewed by high-cost areas), and they talk about the monthly cost today without talking about how home purchase prices are fixed while rents will likely inevitably increase.  They also don't even mention that you can deduct mortgage interest from taxes but you can't for rent. Even with the silly Trump-era SALT limit of $10k, that will be worth around $150/month in tax reduction (at the 18% tax bracket).  Fix your I-9 and get that money back every month.

Event this one makes it sound like buying is worse than renting.

I feel like these articles are stating truths (on average it costs more today in monthly payment terms to buy than rent) but it is talking only about present monthly payments, not total future discounted cost.  The headlines seem to fall into the trap of "monthly payments are all that matters" instead of considering other factors.  (Note: I totally agree that if you can't afford a house payment, then don't over-extend to do it!)

I dunno I guess I don't see the situation as pessimistic as the mass media; probably because optimism doesn't sell...

EDIT: what do you mean payments start to balloon - once you buy a house, the price you pay per month stays constant until you refinance or move.  Yes payments are higher at 8% than they were at 3%.  And house prices are high because *gasp* people are paying those prices, even at high interest rates!  So clearly people were willing to pay inflated prices.

The *only* time renting is better long-term financially than buying is if rent increases are less than inflation and you are investing the money you aren't spending on a higher-cost mortgage in something that makes returns higher than the rate of inflation (and higher than the rate of appreciation of a house, had you bought it).

Note I'm making a distinction between long-term and short-term; yes going house-poor is not wise. But if you can buy a house - any house pretty much - you are historically better off. About the only time that doesn't work if you get unlucky and are trying to sell a house during a recession or other period when there is a glut of housing supply.

[nenjin]

what do you mean payments start to balloon - once you buy a house, the price you pay per month stays constant until you refinance or move.

I mean the payments on $100k loan at 4% are very different than a $100k loan at 6.5%.

And house prices are high because *gasp* people are paying those prices, even at high interest rates!  So clearly people were willing to pay inflated prices.

Yes, "people." Ie, corporations with bottomless pockets, home speculators and the like. Don't mistake homes getting bought as a reflection of what the average American can do. Part of the increase in housing prices was people sitting on inventory reducing availability to artificially drive up the price.

Let's put it another way though. Poll anyone that has bought a house in the last 5 years and ask them how much money their family/parents had to kick in. That should tell you everything you need to know. (Spoiler: both my brother and my cousin needed family money to get the homes they wanted. They'll act like they did it with their bootstraps but I know the amount of money they needed to make that happen.)

[McTraveller]

Ok then I will happily hold on to my house and be as secure in my housing as you can be, plus not having to worry about by rent increasing.  Sure I could lose my job, but that risk is the same regardless of rent vs buy, unless you actually own a house outright.

Due to inflation and promotions, my mortgage and property tax has dropped from 15% of my household gross income to 6% of my gross income in the past 10 years.  I can't imagine if I was renting that my non-variable housing cost would have been cut in half in real terms in the past 10 years.

This is what I mean by buying being better than renting.

[nenjin]

Did you need family help to afford your home?

[McTraveller]

No, and I don't know anyone who has either, although I understand that's anecdotal and not data.

I even put almost 20% down for this, my first house, I couldn't quite do it, but was able able to refinance 4 years into the 30 year term and get rid of PMI because at that point I was below 80% LTV.  (PMI is such a scam... not only do lenders want a risk premium in the interest rate, they want additional "insurance" not paid by them, but paid by the borrower!  So trust me I'm aware of the nasty systematic issues associated with homeownership).

[Loud Whispers]

This is all just an artifact of forcing companies to keep their profits and losses "scoped" to their company.  If a company like an airline could treat the benefits to society as its own gain, even if it was spending more money than it made, then that value could be treated as profit due to that company.

Basically this is externalized profit, which is the oft-neglected twin of externalized costs.  That is, benefits to society not realized by the companies or individuals providing them, just as there are costs to society not realized by the companies or individuals incurring them.

Until we figure out a way to account for these costs and benefits other than money flow, we'll continue to have this situation.

This is the principle behind having public roads and national health services. In times of yore in the UK you used to have loads of privately maintained roads with toll gates to pay for the upkeep of certain bridges and roads. But by nationalising this service and allowing everyone to use the roads, commerce exploded and the public benefit more than paid for itself. Same deal with public healthcare; people in good health pay taxes and get work done, and a strong public healthcare system facilitates even more profitable private healthcare research. Similar things could be said for good port infrastructure, good passenger rail at cheap prices, good internet infrastructure and availability. If you want to go one step further, I find it very funny that in the UK our Tories are ardent free market disciples and would swear by Adam Smith as their Lord and Saviour. Yet Adam Smith will tell them the best economic system is one in which a free peoples possessed of capital are able to allocate their own labour and capital in accordance with their own will. So naturally the conservatives endeavour to create consolidated markets and slash the social protections which allow free peoples to build up the savings which become their future investment capital. It's terrible now that young people in this country start at the bottom of the career ladder already crippled by debt, all of their surplus capital siphoned off by rising costs and excessive rents. Especially since much of these costings like energy bills or rents do not circulate into very productive endeavours at all, resulting in an extraction of real value, not a production of real value

Also the Argentinian protests got me surprised. Like I get the people who never voted for him and never supported him protesting. But the rest, who did vote for him but are now shocked he wants to privatise the airlines. You elect a far right libertarian called the chainsaw man who says he's going to privatise everything and then get mad when he starts privatising everything. He didn't keep it secret that he intended to turn Argentina's economy into a mad max experiment. It's like when all the French voted for Macron when he said he was going to crush the labour unions and then started rioting in the streets when Macron tried to crush the labour unions. They're not keeping their ambitions secret ???

[EuchreJack]

I read an interesting article about the funding of the gaming industry.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/latoya-peterson-studios-are-at-the-mercy-of-this-house-of-cards-that-is-the-funding-system-that-weve-built

To answer the article's question as to why movies have more diverse funding, I think it is because gaming is still heavily stigmatized. At least in the United States, I would be quite surprised to hear Government Funding of any kind going towards production of a video game.