Nov 6, 2022·edited Nov 6, 2022Liked by Joan DeMartin
Housing "markets" are tricky to analyze. The effects of supply and demand seem so readily apparent that we tend to accept ideas like the price being "what the market will bear."
But when we look at the parties, we have to realize that the concept of rational economic actors behaving voluntarily through contract is absurd.
On the one side you have banks whose goal and purpose is to maximize wealth extraction, and on the other side you have people who need "a roof over their heads" to live.
The pricing software is making the relationship more rational and frictionless from the bankers' perspective while for those needing a "home" it is, as always, a non-rational, visceral experience, entirely bound up with all of the other ties to society we (try to) maintain.
So rather than try to improve things by tinkering around with ideas in terms of "market" theory (increase supply of this or that/changes in taxation, etc) we should push for a more basic rethinking of housing and land ownership.
Will that ever happen? Probably not any time soon because it would require divesting the ownership class of their wealth. But at least we should broaden the terms of debate.
What does a person born into a society owe that society at birth? Is the amount a person today must pay to society's owners in order to have shelter commensurate with that basic debt?
The phrase ‘leasing agents have too much empathy’ leapt out at me from this post. We have a similar crisis in affordable homes to rent and buy in the south of England. Thanks for sharing.
Housing "markets" are tricky to analyze. The effects of supply and demand seem so readily apparent that we tend to accept ideas like the price being "what the market will bear."
But when we look at the parties, we have to realize that the concept of rational economic actors behaving voluntarily through contract is absurd.
On the one side you have banks whose goal and purpose is to maximize wealth extraction, and on the other side you have people who need "a roof over their heads" to live.
The pricing software is making the relationship more rational and frictionless from the bankers' perspective while for those needing a "home" it is, as always, a non-rational, visceral experience, entirely bound up with all of the other ties to society we (try to) maintain.
So rather than try to improve things by tinkering around with ideas in terms of "market" theory (increase supply of this or that/changes in taxation, etc) we should push for a more basic rethinking of housing and land ownership.
Will that ever happen? Probably not any time soon because it would require divesting the ownership class of their wealth. But at least we should broaden the terms of debate.
What does a person born into a society owe that society at birth? Is the amount a person today must pay to society's owners in order to have shelter commensurate with that basic debt?
The phrase ‘leasing agents have too much empathy’ leapt out at me from this post. We have a similar crisis in affordable homes to rent and buy in the south of England. Thanks for sharing.