TomMckenny

True but then none of us would be alive to comment about it.

Shouldn't that be “e e cummings”?

Logically I don't see how a n>2 person marriage would be more likely to be abusive than a two person marriage.

> We really don't have any direct, past precedent for this type of situation.

Unfortunately we do have precedent. Through all of history almost no one owed their own home. It was by extraordinary government intervention in the 20th century through loan programs, incentives and building, and impediments to speculation, that made it uniquely happen in our era.

As the government steps back from continuous intervention favoring individual home ownership and low to nonprofit housing, the more profitable rental economy will re assert itself: it is always more profitable to own a property to rent out then to live in it and the market will reflect that if left to itself.

Price fluctuations (eg 2008) do not change the fact that land price increases have far outpaced wages for decades. So yes, it is rational to be very concerned.

And note that Zillow is not selling these 7k properties to would be homeowners but to investors.

They may lobby and campaign finance their way to some very inconvenient legislation but to consistently hurt EV they would need to turn it into a political shibboleth in the way the oil industry did with climate change.

Naturally I hope this does not happen but it may not be much harder than gaining the sympathies of a few pundits with strong Nielsen ratings.

Rent seeking kills innovation. Patents as currently legislated, issued and resold are overwhelmingly just tools for rent seeking.

There probably is a theoretical way to do it that encourages innovation but it’s hard to see a society ruled by self serving individuals not wrecking it pretty fast.

This means that raising housing costs, interest rates and debt, taxes, and medical costs reduce his figure for foreign imports as a percentage of spending. That increasing the amount spent on those things is “good news” regarding trade deficits.

Unless he is using these numbers to suggest we need to prioritize driving down land prices and rentier practices etc more than worrying about trade imbalance. But this certainly does not seem like his intent.

At any rate, the numbers 11% and 3% are as fictional as the Taylor Lorenz quote but the amount of skepticism differs greatly. This hints more of ideology based beliefs than fact based.

But if they called it ‘rent’ instead of ‘tax’ there would be far less outrage. Strange value system.