Biden's policies debated ( formerly known as Biden outrage of the day )

[Tyler durden]

The alternative is a giant catalog of eviction cases, a large number of families becoming homeless, and a potential economic meltdown. I'd say as far as 'ends justify the means', this isn't the worst one out there.

The problem here is the wishy-washy language that Kavanaugh used in his ruling that made everyone unsure as to what is constitutional and what isn't. The court ended up making this more confusing and blustered, not less.

Oh Kavanaugh the notorious bete noire for the left.

His words seem quite clear to me

Quote

“In my view, clear and specific congressional authorization ( via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31”

End quote.

The WSJ thinks otherwise.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/brett-kavanaugh-eviction-lesson-centers-for-disease-control-and-prevention-joe-biden-11628110002

Key to the fiasco is a 5-4 Supreme Court order at the end of June.
[...]
Therefore, he [Kavanaugh] voted to leave the stay in place until the end of July, when the moratorium expired. He invited Congress to extend the moratorium through legislation if it wished. Congress failed.

The reason it's front of the lower courts is exactly because the SC left the stay in place.

This doesn't excuse Biden but this is, as the WSJ noted, "a lesson for the Supreme Court."

Thanks for the link. Read it. I came away from that with the impression that the "favor" they mention was Kavanaugh allowing the moratorium to stay in effect for a few more weeks. He was giving congress more time, congress failed.

As you said its getting away from the bigger point of how governing is supposed to work. In fairness congress and presidents through executive orders do things frequently that courts strike as not legal. Thats normal as far as how checks and balances work. Knowing its illegal, doing it anyway, and having the whole plan be to buy time in the courts is not supportable.

Switching gears a bit. i dont know whats up with the states who cant get this rental assistance money out to renters. They were given 45 Billion of which only a small portion has been spent.

I know in my state the process was slow for my one tenant who needed it, but they got it done. I've heard some horror stories on NPR from renters in lots of states who just cant get the money even after jumping through lots of hoops. What a mess.

[tooqk4u22]

Even if they continue the moratorium it just delays the inevitable by how ever long that is....do you really think people will suddenly be able to pay all their past due rent.   If only we had put out tons of stimulus payments and enhanced unemployment to the point where 85% of people collecting it were making more than theybwere while working, or sent out extra child tax credits, etc......if only?


Not to mention how many of these people just stopped paying even though they could.   

[PDXTabs]

The alternative is a giant catalog of eviction cases, a large number of families becoming homeless, and a potential economic meltdown. I'd say as far as 'ends justify the means', this isn't the worst one out there.

I think that it's pretty bad. It is the continued expansion of the executive authority to do whatever they want whenever they want it. Not to mention my real fear: the short term impact on mom&pop landlords and the long term impact on the rental market.

The problem here is the wishy-washy language that Kavanaugh used in his ruling that made everyone unsure as to what is constitutional and what isn't. The court ended up making this more confusing and blustered, not less.

No, the problem is that everyone (be they executive, judicial, or legislative) wants to punt on this hard problem. No one wants to see millions evicted during a global pandemic but alternatively no one wants to step up with an actual solution to the problem. Instead of finding a way to pay landlords everyone left them holding the bag.

If there is one thing that I've learned from this pandemic it's that I will never be a landlord. But what does that do to rental supplies? I personally believe that the rental market will be ceded to large corporations like Invitation Homes and the like. Because only they will have the large portfolios to mitigate the idiosyncratic risk.

[Tyler durden]

The alternative is a giant catalog of eviction cases, a large number of families becoming homeless, and a potential economic meltdown. I'd say as far as 'ends justify the means', this isn't the worst one out there.

I think that it's pretty bad. It is the continued expansion of the executive authority to do whatever they want whenever they want it. Not to mention my real fear: the short term impact on mom&pop landlords and the long term impact on the rental market.

The problem here is the wishy-washy language that Kavanaugh used in his ruling that made everyone unsure as to what is constitutional and what isn't. The court ended up making this more confusing and blustered, not less.

No, the problem is that everyone (be they executive, judicial, or legislative) wants to punt on this hard problem. No one wants to see millions evicted during a global pandemic but alternatively no one wants to step up with an actual solution to the problem. Instead of finding a way to pay landlords everyone left them holding the bag.

If there is one thing that I've learned from this pandemic it's that I will never be a landlord. But what does that do to rental supplies? I personally believe that the rental market will be ceded to large corporations like Invitation Homes and the like. Because only they will have the large portfolios to mitigate the idiosyncratic risk.

I wouldn't say we've decided to leave the landlord business based on this. But it changes behavior for sure.

Example 1

We took a new tenant in Jan 1 2021. Lots of applicants. We usually look for applicants who we think would stay for several years to avoid turnover. The applicant we took offered and did pay a full year rent day 1 with a cashiers check. He told me directly he would stay 2 years, no more, wants to buy a place. So we took him over some other folks who we would normally have chosen as a way to hedge the risk of non payment and no eviction.

Example 2

We were planning on buying 2 properties since the moratorium went into effect. We didnt. Still have the cash. Those properties were sold to home owners  not investors. 2 less rentals in the area. Multiply that by ?? 100,000 or more nationwide...

If it gets to be a recurring issue with eviction moratoriums ( which i dont think it will ) we will sell.

[bacchi]

As to your question about the funds, Tyler, it's a mystery for sure. Is it because there isn't a system in place to vet the applicants? Are municipalities sitting on the money?

It's frustrating, definitely. It also should've been more widely given to landlords, too. That NYT? Atlantic? story about a landlord's spiteful tenant, who he can't kick out but who won't apply for assistance, tells me that it wasn't well thought out.

[Samuel]

The alternative is a giant catalog of eviction cases, a large number of families becoming homeless, and a potential economic meltdown. I'd say as far as 'ends justify the means', this isn't the worst one out there.

The problem here is the wishy-washy language that Kavanaugh used in his ruling that made everyone unsure as to what is constitutional and what isn't. The court ended up making this more confusing and blustered, not less.

Oh Kavanaugh the notorious bete noire for the left.

His words seem quite clear to me

Quote

“In my view, clear and specific congressional authorization ( via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31”

End quote.

Yeah, but that's just additional confusion. So then did the president have the authority to enact the moratorium in the first place? Why the arbitrary date of July 31 and why does Kavanaugh get to decide when the CDC no longer has a valid reason to invoke a moratorium? Does the CDC have any authority to declare a health crisis?

What if things get worse? Does that mean the July 31 deadline no longer matters anymore?

I mean the list goes on. Kavanaugh made an arbitrary ruling without setting down any sort of guidelines for future decisions which is why I think Biden had to keep referencing "constitutional scholars" because Kavanaugh's ruling has confused everyone in legal academia what this means or what would pass the court's opinion or not.

Kavanaugh isn't the only guilty one of doing this. (Like in Bush v Gore saying that "here's our decision, but this totally shouldn't set any precedent") It doesn't do anything to help lower courts make a future decision. It's simply the court legislating.

The July 31st date is not arbitrary at all. That's the date the CDC moratorium was set to expire. 5 justices, including Kavanaugh, ruled the CDC exceeded their authority and the moratorium was not valid. Next they had to decide whether it should end immediately or be left in place pending appeal. 4 justices wanted to end it immediately and 4 wanted it left in effect pending appeal. Kavanaugh, out of concern for all the same problems you highlighted a few posts ago, split the difference and said it should not end immediately but left to expire as written on July 31st, giving Congress around a month to act if they so desired. They didn't. Would it have been better if Kavanaugh had voted with the other conservatives and killed the moratorium immediately?

[FIPurpose]

Someone will eventually be left holding the bag of RE prices. Home prices are far too high, but politicians, I think, are afraid to do anything to solve it because it would mean that the middle class would see their property values drop. The real solution I think would be:

1. Start taxing unused property in cities.
2. Start taxing all rental properties for anyone with more than n rentals

There's a push and pull where the more home owners the more people start voting to keep house volumes low. (There by keeping supply low and home prices high). But also the large number of properties being bought by banks and giant investment firms. These need an additional tax because so many of these buildings often go unused or worse artificially raise home prices in certain localities.

The eviction moratorium is similar situation. No one wants to be the one to say who's holding the bag. Right now, both landlords and people who've lost their job due to covid will both go without. So they'll both be angry at the government for not giving them more money.

[CodingHare]

Someone will eventually be left holding the bag of RE prices. Home prices are far too high, but politicians, I think, are afraid to do anything to solve it because it would mean that the middle class would see their property values drop. The real solution I think would be:

1. Start taxing unused property in cities.
2. Start taxing all rental properties for anyone with more than n rentals

There's a push and pull where the more home owners the more people start voting to keep house volumes low. (There by keeping supply low and home prices high). But also the large number of properties being bought by banks and giant investment firms. These need an additional tax because so many of these buildings often go unused or worse artificially raise home prices in certain localities.

The eviction moratorium is similar situation. No one wants to be the one to say who's holding the bag. Right now, both landlords and people who've lost their job due to covid will both go without. So they'll both be angry at the government for not giving them more money.

I'd add solution 3: Massive taxes for non US Citizen's owning property in the US.  There is quite a bit of desireable city real estate being used as tax havens for Chinese nationals.  Across the border in Vancouver, Canada, it is a huge problem driving Canadians out of their own market.  But it's a sweet source of cash so governments don't seem to care to put legislation to work on it.

[PDXTabs]

Someone will eventually be left holding the bag of RE prices. Home prices are far too high, but politicians, I think, are afraid to do anything to solve it because it would mean that the middle class would see their property values drop.

I agree. Or a City Observatory put it: Housing can’t both be a good investment and be affordable

Start taxing unused property in cities.

I completely agree. Tax things that you don't want, and we don't want unused properties (Vancouver BC has started doing this and it has had a meaningful impact from what I've read).

Start taxing all rental properties for anyone with more than n rentals

I'm not sure that I agree with this one. If you want more of something, one way to encourage that is to tax it less, not more. That seems more like a policy to encourage home ownership than a policy to encourage and abundance of affordable rentals.

[PDXTabs]

I'd add solution 3: Massive taxes for non US Citizen's owning property in the US.  There is quite a bit of desireable city real estate being used as tax havens for Chinese nationals.  Across the border in Vancouver, Canada, it is a huge problem driving Canadians out of their own market.  But it's a sweet source of cash so governments don't seem to care to put legislation to work on it.

British Columbia added their Foreign Buyer Tax, but you don't need to be a citizen. You need only be a permanent resident to avoid it. I'm not sure that the US should start taxing greencard holders.

[FIPurpose]

Start taxing all rental properties for anyone with more than n rentals

I'm not sure that I agree with this one. If you want more of something, one way to encourage that is to tax it less, not more. That seems more like a policy to encourage home ownership than a policy to encourage and abundance of affordable rentals.

Well, we have an ever increasing number of SFH's being held by investment firms and giant corporations. Or heck, even local families that can sometimes hold millions of dollars in RE (I know one locally that holds about 20MM in SFH's in just Vancouver, WA alone). It can push people who would normally like to own their own home into renting because the number of available house for sale vs for rent is out of balance.

Forcing larger landlords into selling can help increase the available inventory and provide rental relief to lower income people downstream as well.

Someone will eventually be left holding the bag of RE prices. Home prices are far too high, but politicians, I think, are afraid to do anything to solve it because it would mean that the middle class would see their property values drop. The real solution I think would be:

1. Start taxing unused property in cities.
2. Start taxing all rental properties for anyone with more than n rentals

There's a push and pull where the more home owners the more people start voting to keep house volumes low. (There by keeping supply low and home prices high). But also the large number of properties being bought by banks and giant investment firms. These need an additional tax because so many of these buildings often go unused or worse artificially raise home prices in certain localities.

The eviction moratorium is similar situation. No one wants to be the one to say who's holding the bag. Right now, both landlords and people who've lost their job due to covid will both go without. So they'll both be angry at the government for not giving them more money.

I'd add solution 3: Massive taxes for non US Citizen's owning property in the US.  There is quite a bit of desireable city real estate being used as tax havens for Chinese nationals.  Across the border in Vancouver, Canada, it is a huge problem driving Canadians out of their own market.  But it's a sweet source of cash so governments don't seem to care to put legislation to work on it.

I agree with this idea. And from just glancing at RE data out of Vancouver, it looks like it's helped cool the RE market there as well. While the rest of Canada continues to see skyrocketing prices, Vancouver's has been more or less stable for the past 5-6 years. Not sure that it would do much though outside of large cities. It might have some nice downstream effects (people forced to suburbs can move back to the city freeing up more room downstream), but that doesn't solve the large number of corporate entities that are also willing to make the same speculative investments. I think having policy focused on taxing parking money in empty RE will help alleviate both, but I'm not against a modest additional tax on foreign investors.

[PDXTabs]

Well, we have an ever increasing number of SFH's being held by investment firms and giant corporations. Or heck, even local families that can sometimes hold millions of dollars in RE (I know one locally that holds about 20MM in SFH's in just Vancouver, WA alone). It can push people who would normally like to own their own home into renting because the number of available house for sale vs for rent is out of balance.

It's estimated that 2% of all rentals are owned by hedge funds and large corporations. I personally question whether that is enough to move the needle on price. But some of those corporate landlords, like Fundrise, never compete for already build houses. AFAIK Fundrise decided that buying up already built homes was both a bad business decision and also would put them in an adversarial relationship with their neighbors. So, I'm willing to accept that they are driving up housing stock without taking homes away from people that want to buy them. You are of course welcome to a different opinion. And you can invest with them you big evil landlord you! :)

But more fundamentally, these firms are looking to make a safe-ish return on capital when interest rates are at record lows. That is, the risk-free rate on US treasury debt is laughable.* They're chasing yield in a market that has been under-built since the great recession. There are a couple of things that the government could do which I personally would welcome more that restricting corporate landlords:
1. Figure out how to flood the market with units, Singapore style if necessary.
2. Raise interest rates, pushing up the risk-free rate of US Treasury Bonds making these corporate real estate investments less attractive at current prices.

Of course, that would totally screw today's homeowners, which is why it will never happen. But tons have economists have written at length about how the American dream of homeownership is bad for the economy.

* - and everything bond related or even return on capital expectations are basically pegged to that.

[FIPurpose]

It's estimated that 2% of all rentals are owned by hedge funds and large corporations. I personally question whether that is enough to move the needle on price. But some of those corporate landlords, like Fundrise, never compete for already build houses. AFAIK Fundrise decided that buying up already built homes was both a bad business decision and also would put them in an adversarial relationship with their neighbors. So, I'm willing to accept that they are driving up housing stock without taking homes away from people that want to buy them. You are of course welcome to a different opinion. And you can invest with them you big evil landlord you! :)

But more fundamentally, these firms are looking to make a safe-ish return on capital when interest rates are at record lows. That is, the risk-free rate on US treasury debt is laughable.* They're chasing yield in a market that has been under-built since the great recession. There are a couple of things that the government could do which I personally would welcome more that restricting corporate landlords:
1. Figure out how to flood the market with units, Singapore style if necessary.
2. Raise interest rates, pushing up the risk-free rate of US Treasury Bonds making these corporate real estate investments less attractive at current prices.

Of course, that would totally screw today's homeowners, which is why it will never happen. But tons have economists have written at length about how the American dream of homeownership is bad for the economy.

* - and everything bond related or even return on capital expectations are basically pegged to that.

Interesting. Yeah I just reviewed The Economists piece on how home ownership isn't really all that great for the economy and how Switzerland's low ownership rate actually leads to a much more stable rental situation and pushes voters to enact more favorable rental laws that lead to better outcomes for everyone.  Thanks for pointing me that way.

You could also add a couple other items to your list that will never happen:

1. End mortgage deduction
2. End free capital gains

Or at the very least, they are still far too high. They should both at least be cut in half. (I think the mortgage deduction is available for something like the first 750k?)

I will also admit I invest in Fundrise and also hold certain RE index funds. However, I think that it is better for the economy overall (and probably my investments too) to cannibalize that part of my portfolio for a better functioning housing situation rather than risking a boom/crash market. If that means my portfolio returns a more steady 6% rather than a more erratic 8%, I'll take that trade especially if it means thousands if not millions of people's living conditions improving. I realize I might be odd in that opinion however.

I also could be very wrong and RE continues to go bonkers another decade which is why I still buy investments in it and balance accordingly. But I'm also a renter, so index funds are really the only way for me to gain exposure to the RE market.

[PDXTabs]

You could also add a couple other items to your list that will never happen:

1. End mortgage deduction
2. End free capital gains

Or at the very least, they are still far too high. They should both at least be cut in half. (I think the mortgage deduction is available for something like the first 750k?)

Sign me up! I believe that it's 250k per person. So 250k for single filers and 500k for most married folks. But I also believe that strictly speaking you could split your house between six single people and they'd all get the 250k, but I'm not a tax lawyer. EDITed to add: I was in reference to capital gains exclusion here.

The other thing that annoys me is not indexing it to inflation. You get the same 250k after 2 years or 60 years.

I'm totally on board with ending the mortgage interest tax deduction. It's just a transfer of wealth from people without mortgages to people with mortgages. But Americans hate paying taxes, on both sides of the aisle.

[LennStar]

If there is one thing that I've learned from this pandemic it's that I will never be a landlord. But what does that do to rental supplies? I personally believe that the rental market will be ceded to large corporations like Invitation Homes and the like. Because only they will have the large portfolios to mitigate the idiosyncratic risk.

Or you could just go - gasp - the communistic way with city-owned cooperatives that build and rent out on a non-profit base with low-price housing in the center of efforts.
I know, what an henious suggestion! But it would be a way.

[nereo]

If there is one thing that I've learned from this pandemic it's that I will never be a landlord. But what does that do to rental supplies? I personally believe that the rental market will be ceded to large corporations like Invitation Homes and the like. Because only they will have the large portfolios to mitigate the idiosyncratic risk.

Or you could just go - gasp - the communistic way with city-owned cooperatives that build and rent out on a non-profit base with low-price housing in the center of efforts.
I know, what an henious suggestion! But it would be a way.

That’s a pretty tough sell in the US, and I’m pretty sure it might be illegal and would be met with a whole wave of legal challenges from the private landlords that would be undercut. Sigh. 

[FIPurpose]

If there is one thing that I've learned from this pandemic it's that I will never be a landlord. But what does that do to rental supplies? I personally believe that the rental market will be ceded to large corporations like Invitation Homes and the like. Because only they will have the large portfolios to mitigate the idiosyncratic risk.

Or you could just go - gasp - the communistic way with city-owned cooperatives that build and rent out on a non-profit base with low-price housing in the center of efforts.
I know, what an henious suggestion! But it would be a way.

That’s a pretty tough sell in the US, and I’m pretty sure it might be illegal and would be met with a whole wave of legal challenges from the private landlords that would be undercut. Sigh.

It'll work as long as you do it quietly and fast enough before anyone yells "SOCIALISM". Rural communities are surprisingly amenable to municipal run grocery stores when they don't have one. Shh don't tell any of them that that's actually a socialist idea. Perhaps in municipalities that have a strong housing need, they just say "We need more apartments, so we'll just build them at close to market rates."

[tooqk4u22]

Well, we have an ever increasing number of SFH's being held by investment firms and giant corporations. Or heck, even local families that can sometimes hold millions of dollars in RE (I know one locally that holds about 20MM in SFH's in just Vancouver, WA alone). It can push people who would normally like to own their own home into renting because the number of available house for sale vs for rent is out of balance.

It's estimated that 2% of all rentals are owned by hedge funds and large corporations. I personally question whether that is enough to move the needle on price. But some of those corporate landlords, like Fundrise, never compete for already build houses. AFAIK Fundrise decided that buying up already built homes was both a bad business decision and also would put them in an adversarial relationship with their neighbors. So, I'm willing to accept that they are driving up housing stock without taking homes away from people that want to buy them. You are of course welcome to a different opinion. And you can invest with them you big evil landlord you! :)

But more fundamentally, these firms are looking to make a safe-ish return on capital when interest rates are at record lows. That is, the risk-free rate on US treasury debt is laughable.* They're chasing yield in a market that has been under-built since the great recession. There are a couple of things that the government could do which I personally would welcome more that restricting corporate landlords:
1. Figure out how to flood the market with units, Singapore style if necessary.
2. Raise interest rates, pushing up the risk-free rate of US Treasury Bonds making these corporate real estate investments less attractive at current prices.

Of course, that would totally screw today's homeowners, which is why it will never happen. But tons have economists have written at length about how the American dream of homeownership is bad for the economy.

* - and everything bond related or even return on capital expectations are basically pegged to that.

Large investors owning SFH is a recent development coming out of the housing crisis (nobody complained then by the way as finally some capital was coming back to housing) so that is partly why institionL ownership is low but growing.  Also the 2% is concentrated in a few markets so ownership in those markets is higher.   

Regardless it's not the ownership that matters its the mass buying and selling (although there hasn't really been any selling) where at times the institions have accounted for 50% or more of total purchases and that is the problem as they can over pay bc they have access to capital markets that offer low rate bonds, no rate lines of credit and of course PE and public equity.  Individuals can't compete when that happens.

As for mass building of units, aside from they won't do it bc nobody wants to be on the hook for screwing homeowners 60ish% of all voters nobody wants large amounts of new apartments in their area putting a strain on schools, traffic and other services (NIMBY...it's everywhere) Find me the greatest advocate for housing and I will show you a person advocating for it in the next town over or inner city but not their town (exception of course is impoverished inner cities where corrupt politicians and greedy real estate developers can do whatever they want) I mean the money that LIHTC developers make for putting up almost no capital is crazy.

[LennStar]

If there is one thing that I've learned from this pandemic it's that I will never be a landlord. But what does that do to rental supplies? I personally believe that the rental market will be ceded to large corporations like Invitation Homes and the like. Because only they will have the large portfolios to mitigate the idiosyncratic risk.

Or you could just go - gasp - the communistic way with city-owned cooperatives that build and rent out on a non-profit base with low-price housing in the center of efforts.
I know, what an henious suggestion! But it would be a way.

That’s a pretty tough sell in the US, and I’m pretty sure it might be illegal and would be met with a whole wave of legal challenges from the private landlords that would be undercut. Sigh.

Why is it illegal if a bunch of people team up to invest in real estate?
Ah, it's the "city run" part? Then just make it a fully city owned private company, done. (That is how they do it here in Germany mostly with a GmbH so that they don't have to adhere to public service wages and transparency rules.)

[tooqk4u22]

It's estimated that 2% of all rentals are owned by hedge funds and large corporations. I personally question whether that is enough to move the needle on price. But some of those corporate landlords, like Fundrise, never compete for already build houses. AFAIK Fundrise decided that buying up already built homes was both a bad business decision and also would put them in an adversarial relationship with their neighbors. So, I'm willing to accept that they are driving up housing stock without taking homes away from people that want to buy them. You are of course welcome to a different opinion. And you can invest with them you big evil landlord you! :)

But more fundamentally, these firms are looking to make a safe-ish return on capital when interest rates are at record lows. That is, the risk-free rate on US treasury debt is laughable.* They're chasing yield in a market that has been under-built since the great recession. There are a couple of things that the government could do which I personally would welcome more that restricting corporate landlords:
1. Figure out how to flood the market with units, Singapore style if necessary.
2. Raise interest rates, pushing up the risk-free rate of US Treasury Bonds making these corporate real estate investments less attractive at current prices.

Of course, that would totally screw today's homeowners, which is why it will never happen. But tons have economists have written at length about how the American dream of homeownership is bad for the economy.

* - and everything bond related or even return on capital expectations are basically pegged to that.

Interesting. Yeah I just reviewed The Economists piece on how home ownership isn't really all that great for the economy and how Switzerland's low ownership rate actually leads to a much more stable rental situation and pushes voters to enact more favorable rental laws that lead to better outcomes for everyone.  Thanks for pointing me that way.

You could also add a couple other items to your list that will never happen:

1. End mortgage deduction
2. End free capital gains

Or at the very least, they are still far too high. They should both at least be cut in half. (I think the mortgage deduction is available for something like the first 750k?)

I will also admit I invest in Fundrise and also hold certain RE index funds. However, I think that it is better for the economy overall (and probably my investments too) to cannibalize that part of my portfolio for a better functioning housing situation rather than risking a boom/crash market. If that means my portfolio returns a more steady 6% rather than a more erratic 8%, I'll take that trade especially if it means thousands if not millions of people's living conditions improving. I realize I might be odd in that opinion however.

I also could be very wrong and RE continues to go bonkers another decade which is why I still buy investments in it and balance accordingly. But I'm also a renter, so index funds are really the only way for me to gain exposure to the RE market.

The interest deduction has basically been eliminated with the increase in the standard deduction and SALT cap and now applies to a relative few (<10%) , also the low interest rates makes the deduction less meaningful.  Of that <10% you also have to keep in mind that the gap between the standard deduction and interest and salt is likely very small in all but the most extreme cases (even then it is likely only $30k) but the real value of deductions is in deductions for medical costs and charitable contributions.

As for ending the capital gains limit that would actually harm housing. The reason for the allowance promotes mobility like when a senior who has lived in a house for 30 years that has appreciated greatly.  They want to downsize but before that was put in place they would have had to pay significant taxes to move and then might not have enough to buy the downsized place or pay for other needs so they stay in place....now that house isn't available for a new couple to buy and start reproducing.   To some extent you see this in California where where you see people not wanting to move bc their property tax would be so much higher at the next place (provided they stay in CA).   

Also the allowance isn't egregious and there are minimum time requirements that people need to live there for.   Plus inflation can account for a bunch of it.

[LaineyAZ]

In downtown Phoenix they are about to kick off a project to build a 3 story apartment complex where a majority of the units are reserved for seniors who need subsidized housing but the rest will be market-rate rentals.  It's being developed by a non-profit and local city government along with federal monies.  (I don't know the exact mix.)

I thought this was a good use of taxpayer funds along with being a sustainable way to provide reasonable cost housing units.  I'm surprised this type of mix isn't done more, although I know this particular project took years due to getting funding and some other issues.  One big reason for the hold-up is the change in federal administration every 4 years, so I wish there was a way to avoid that. 
And of course it won't generate the amount of money that "luxury rental" apartments would, hence the need for the non-profits/government agencies to be involved so that affordable housing doesn't get swept aside in the drive for shareholder revenue. 

[By the River]

...
You could also add a couple other items to your list that will never happen:

1. End mortgage deduction
2. End free capital gains

Or at the very least, they are still far too high. They should both at least be cut in half. (I think the mortgage deduction is available for something like the first 750k?)
...

The mortgage deduction (on total mortgages up to $750K for married) applies to both the primary home and a second home (more than 50 miles away).  One small change is to make the deduction only apply to the primary home.  This would raise the cost of owning a second home some which may lead to a reduction in housing costs, especially where second homes are common. 

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

If there is one thing that I've learned from this pandemic it's that I will never be a landlord. But what does that do to rental supplies? I personally believe that the rental market will be ceded to large corporations like Invitation Homes and the like. Because only they will have the large portfolios to mitigate the idiosyncratic risk.

Or you could just go - gasp - the communistic way with city-owned cooperatives that build and rent out on a non-profit base with low-price housing in the center of efforts.
I know, what an henious suggestion! But it would be a way.

Is this style present in German? If so, does it work well? I'm curious how these situations do things like set prices for rent and are managed/accountable.

[nereo]

If there is one thing that I've learned from this pandemic it's that I will never be a landlord. But what does that do to rental supplies? I personally believe that the rental market will be ceded to large corporations like Invitation Homes and the like. Because only they will have the large portfolios to mitigate the idiosyncratic risk.

Or you could just go - gasp - the communistic way with city-owned cooperatives that build and rent out on a non-profit base with low-price housing in the center of efforts.
I know, what an henious suggestion! But it would be a way.

That’s a pretty tough sell in the US, and I’m pretty sure it might be illegal and would be met with a whole wave of legal challenges from the private landlords that would be undercut. Sigh.

Why is it illegal if a bunch of people team up to invest in real estate?
Ah, it's the "city run" part? Then just make it a fully city owned private company, done. (That is how they do it here in Germany mostly with a GmbH so that they don't have to adhere to public service wages and transparency rules.)

The legal construct is “competitive neutrality” and the gist is that government or philanthropic organizations should not disrupt a marketplace to the point where private industry is insolvent.

Using our topic of rent as an example, imagine an area where hte average rent was $2k, largely because the landlords paid $x for the property and factoring in ~10% profit, expenses and risk, $2k is what they charge, based on ‘market forces’.

If an agency came in and said “$2k is unaffordable, we’re going to offer units for $500, even though it’ll be at a steep loss”. And then they proceed to use taxpayer money and government employees to build and maintain said properties. Great for renters, horrible for anyone that owns property. Rather than netting $400/mo, landlords are now losing $900/mo. Homeowners see their property values plummet, as why pay $1600 for a mortgage when you can rent for $500.

A bit simplistic but hopefully the idea is clear. A lot of programs designed to “help the ____” wind up challenged in court because it also “hurts the _____”, and is patently unfair.

That doesn’t mean it can’t be done. We do have housing assistance that’s need based and capped.  Also, I’m just explaining the concept, not supporting it. I believe the US would be much better off if we could get over our fear of “communism!” And accept that some governmental assistance programs can substantially improve our society and are - on net - extremely beneficial.

[FIPurpose]

It's estimated that 2% of all rentals are owned by hedge funds and large corporations. I personally question whether that is enough to move the needle on price. But some of those corporate landlords, like Fundrise, never compete for already build houses. AFAIK Fundrise decided that buying up already built homes was both a bad business decision and also would put them in an adversarial relationship with their neighbors. So, I'm willing to accept that they are driving up housing stock without taking homes away from people that want to buy them. You are of course welcome to a different opinion. And you can invest with them you big evil landlord you! :)

But more fundamentally, these firms are looking to make a safe-ish return on capital when interest rates are at record lows. That is, the risk-free rate on US treasury debt is laughable.* They're chasing yield in a market that has been under-built since the great recession. There are a couple of things that the government could do which I personally would welcome more that restricting corporate landlords:
1. Figure out how to flood the market with units, Singapore style if necessary.
2. Raise interest rates, pushing up the risk-free rate of US Treasury Bonds making these corporate real estate investments less attractive at current prices.

Of course, that would totally screw today's homeowners, which is why it will never happen. But tons have economists have written at length about how the American dream of homeownership is bad for the economy.

* - and everything bond related or even return on capital expectations are basically pegged to that.

Interesting. Yeah I just reviewed The Economists piece on how home ownership isn't really all that great for the economy and how Switzerland's low ownership rate actually leads to a much more stable rental situation and pushes voters to enact more favorable rental laws that lead to better outcomes for everyone.  Thanks for pointing me that way.

You could also add a couple other items to your list that will never happen:

1. End mortgage deduction
2. End free capital gains

Or at the very least, they are still far too high. They should both at least be cut in half. (I think the mortgage deduction is available for something like the first 750k?)

I will also admit I invest in Fundrise and also hold certain RE index funds. However, I think that it is better for the economy overall (and probably my investments too) to cannibalize that part of my portfolio for a better functioning housing situation rather than risking a boom/crash market. If that means my portfolio returns a more steady 6% rather than a more erratic 8%, I'll take that trade especially if it means thousands if not millions of people's living conditions improving. I realize I might be odd in that opinion however.

I also could be very wrong and RE continues to go bonkers another decade which is why I still buy investments in it and balance accordingly. But I'm also a renter, so index funds are really the only way for me to gain exposure to the RE market.

The interest deduction has basically been eliminated with the increase in the standard deduction and SALT cap and now applies to a relative few (<10%) , also the low interest rates makes the deduction less meaningful.  Of that <10% you also have to keep in mind that the gap between the standard deduction and interest and salt is likely very small in all but the most extreme cases (even then it is likely only $30k) but the real value of deductions is in deductions for medical costs and charitable contributions.

As for ending the capital gains limit that would actually harm housing. The reason for the allowance promotes mobility like when a senior who has lived in a house for 30 years that has appreciated greatly.  They want to downsize but before that was put in place they would have had to pay significant taxes to move and then might not have enough to buy the downsized place or pay for other needs so they stay in place....now that house isn't available for a new couple to buy and start reproducing.   To some extent you see this in California where where you see people not wanting to move bc their property tax would be so much higher at the next place (provided they stay in CA).   

Also the allowance isn't egregious and there are minimum time requirements that people need to live there for.   Plus inflation can account for a bunch of it.

To the first section: Very true. Which means even more so that the mortgage interest deduction would only be taken by the very wealthy. If a wealthy person is donating 10's of thousands every year, then they are still getting the biggest return from that deduction. So perhaps just complete elimination is the better route.

To the second: We still have 1031 transfers that would allow people to have tax-free exchanges in RE transactions. Eliminating CG's wouldn't prevent an old person from being able to downsize. They'd simply have to pay CG's on the portion that they didn't use for their new house. (and for a lower income retiree this would likely mostly be in the 0 or 15% brackets) This would also mean that people who move to a new city wouldn't necessarily have to pay taxes either, it would just be in a 1031 to use on their new house.

We don't think about it too much because the exclusion cap is so high, but you can deduct most major home repair from your CG's on a house. So even if an old person owned their home for 30 years and made 200k on the house. They can probably find a significant chunk of repairs they've done over the years cover a large portion of it. I think for simplicity sake, it's easier to just have a flat baseline exclusion. But 250k per person I think is too high. Something closer to 100k and indexed to housing inflation would make the most sense. (Because again, the large majority of this exclusion is going to the top 20% of wealth not the 60 year old retiree who made a small chunk of change on their long-term home)

The property tax issue in CA is a terrible thing and there have been many attempts to have it removed, but there are simply too many people who have that benefit and don't want to lose it. (Or more likely imagine that they are gaining more from it than they really are). It's my opinion that that is a bad tax policy and is one of the few libertarian streaks that CA is known for (but when it goes wrong will be labeled as 'liberal').

[PDXTabs]

If there is one thing that I've learned from this pandemic it's that I will never be a landlord. But what does that do to rental supplies? I personally believe that the rental market will be ceded to large corporations like Invitation Homes and the like. Because only they will have the large portfolios to mitigate the idiosyncratic risk.

Or you could just go - gasp - the communistic way with city-owned cooperatives that build and rent out on a non-profit base with low-price housing in the center of efforts.
I know, what an henious suggestion! But it would be a way.

I completely agree. I think that I more or less covered that option when I wrote "There are a couple of things that the government could do which I personally would welcome more that restricting corporate landlords: 1. Figure out how to flood the market with units, Singapore style if necessary."

But even in Singapore there is room in the market for private landlords.

[PDXTabs]

The interest deduction has basically been eliminated with the increase in the standard deduction and SALT cap and now applies to a relative few (<10%) , also the low interest rates makes the deduction less meaningful.  Of that <10% you also have to keep in mind that the gap between the standard deduction and interest and salt is likely very small in all but the most extreme cases (even then it is likely only $30k) but the real value of deductions is in deductions for medical costs and charitable contributions.

That depends on your local tax rate. As a single filer you get $10k of SALT, so you only need $2,551 of mortgage interest to make it worth your while. Less if you donate to charity.

But you are correct in the sense that it disproportionately helps wealthy households and should be eliminated.

[Mr. Green]

Well, we have an ever increasing number of SFH's being held by investment firms and giant corporations. Or heck, even local families that can sometimes hold millions of dollars in RE (I know one locally that holds about 20MM in SFH's in just Vancouver, WA alone). It can push people who would normally like to own their own home into renting because the number of available house for sale vs for rent is out of balance.

It's estimated that 2% of all rentals are owned by hedge funds and large corporations. I personally question whether that is enough to move the needle on price. But some of those corporate landlords, like Fundrise, never compete for already build houses. AFAIK Fundrise decided that buying up already built homes was both a bad business decision and also would put them in an adversarial relationship with their neighbors. So, I'm willing to accept that they are driving up housing stock without taking homes away from people that want to buy them. You are of course welcome to a different opinion. And you can invest with them you big evil landlord you! :)

But more fundamentally, these firms are looking to make a safe-ish return on capital when interest rates are at record lows. That is, the risk-free rate on US treasury debt is laughable.* They're chasing yield in a market that has been under-built since the great recession. There are a couple of things that the government could do which I personally would welcome more that restricting corporate landlords:
1. Figure out how to flood the market with units, Singapore style if necessary.
2. Raise interest rates, pushing up the risk-free rate of US Treasury Bonds making these corporate real estate investments less attractive at current prices.

Of course, that would totally screw today's homeowners, which is why it will never happen. But tons have economists have written at length about how the American dream of homeownership is bad for the economy.

* - and everything bond related or even return on capital expectations are basically pegged to that.

Institutional investors bought 25% of all SFH in 2020. They only have 2% of total homes because they're just starting this game. Choking the supply of homes to families looking to buy in a high demand environment would absolutely influence price. Hell, you could argue that is a short squeeze on housing. I don't think they're doing it looking to flip them for a profit down the road as their primary objective but if you have enough money it doesn't sound like a particularly bad plan if you were.

[PDXTabs]

Institutional investors bought 25% of all SFH in 2020. They only have 2% of total homes because they're just starting this game. Choking the supply of homes to families looking to buy in a high demand environment would absolutely influence price. Hell, you could argue that is a short squeeze on housing. I don't think they're doing it looking to flip them for a profit down the road as their primary objective but if you have enough money it doesn't sound like a particularly bad plan if you were.

Interesting, do you have a source for that? I would love to peruse it.

[Mr. Green]

Institutional investors bought 25% of all SFH in 2020. They only have 2% of total homes because they're just starting this game. Choking the supply of homes to families looking to buy in a high demand environment would absolutely influence price. Hell, you could argue that is a short squeeze on housing. I don't think they're doing it looking to flip them for a profit down the road as their primary objective but if you have enough money it doesn't sound like a particularly bad plan if you were.

Interesting, do you have a source for that? I would love to peruse it.

I'm flubbing this one. I can't find what I'd read and I don't feel like hunting it down. I'm sure I've misconstrued the statistic. 6.46 million homes were sold last year. However the 25% number clearly stands out in my memory. It's obviously not what I recall though. I get to look like the idiot on this one. :)

[bacchi]

Institutional investors bought 25% of all SFH in 2020. They only have 2% of total homes because they're just starting this game. Choking the supply of homes to families looking to buy in a high demand environment would absolutely influence price. Hell, you could argue that is a short squeeze on housing. I don't think they're doing it looking to flip them for a profit down the road as their primary objective but if you have enough money it doesn't sound like a particularly bad plan if you were.

Interesting, do you have a source for that? I would love to peruse it.

I'm flubbing this one. I can't find what I'd read and I don't feel like hunting it down. I'm sure I've misconstrued the statistic. 6.46 million homes were sold last year. However the 25% number clearly stands out in my memory. It's obviously not what I recall though. I get to look like the idiot on this one. :)

This? It was Q1 but it's 25%.

According to John Burns Real Estate Consulting, in the first three months of this year, nearly a quarter of all homes sold in the United States were going to investors.

That may be exaggerated but there are indications that big money is changing the rental and ownership market.

D.R. Horton Inc. built 124 houses in Conroe, Texas, rented them out and then put the whole community, Amber Pines at Fosters Ridge, on the block. A Who’s Who of investors and home-rental firms flocked to the December sale. The winning $32 million bid came from an online property-investing platform, Fundrise LLC, which manages more than $1 billion on behalf of about 150,000 individuals.

An entire neighborhood of new homes was sold to the highest bidder. Crazy. And Horton made 50% profit over what it would have made selling to families.


The Spring Hill, TN (Nashville MSA) rental market is controlled by hedge funds.

[Four firms own] roughly three-quarters of those available for rent
[...]
Those four companies and others like them have become big landlords in other Nashville suburbs, and in neighborhoods outside Atlanta, Phoenix and a couple dozen other metropolitan areas.

(bolded)

Etc.

[Mr. Green]

Institutional investors bought 25% of all SFH in 2020. They only have 2% of total homes because they're just starting this game. Choking the supply of homes to families looking to buy in a high demand environment would absolutely influence price. Hell, you could argue that is a short squeeze on housing. I don't think they're doing it looking to flip them for a profit down the road as their primary objective but if you have enough money it doesn't sound like a particularly bad plan if you were.

Interesting, do you have a source for that? I would love to peruse it.

I'm flubbing this one. I can't find what I'd read and I don't feel like hunting it down. I'm sure I've misconstrued the statistic. 6.46 million homes were sold last year. However the 25% number clearly stands out in my memory. It's obviously not what I recall though. I get to look like the idiot on this one. :)

This? It was Q1 but it's 25%.

According to John Burns Real Estate Consulting, in the first three months of this year, nearly a quarter of all homes sold in the United States were going to investors.

That may be exaggerated but there are indications that big money is changing the rental and ownership market.

D.R. Horton Inc. built 124 houses in Conroe, Texas, rented them out and then put the whole community, Amber Pines at Fosters Ridge, on the block. A Who’s Who of investors and home-rental firms flocked to the December sale. The winning $32 million bid came from an online property-investing platform, Fundrise LLC, which manages more than $1 billion on behalf of about 150,000 individuals.

An entire neighborhood of new homes was sold to the highest bidder. Crazy. And Horton made 50% profit over what it would have made selling to families.


The Spring Hill, TN (Nashville MSA) rental market is controlled by hedge funds.

[Four firms own] roughly three-quarters of those available for rent
[...]
Those four companies and others like them have become big landlords in other Nashville suburbs, and in neighborhoods outside Atlanta, Phoenix and a couple dozen other metropolitan areas.

(bolded)

Etc.

Yup, it was a lot of that. The article I read said that some company has reached an agreement with DR Horton to deliver a large number of new construction homes for their rental portfolio. And multiple other companies and pension funds are looking to ramp up their home buying.

[LennStar]

If there is one thing that I've learned from this pandemic it's that I will never be a landlord. But what does that do to rental supplies? I personally believe that the rental market will be ceded to large corporations like Invitation Homes and the like. Because only they will have the large portfolios to mitigate the idiosyncratic risk.

Or you could just go - gasp - the communistic way with city-owned cooperatives that build and rent out on a non-profit base with low-price housing in the center of efforts.
I know, what an henious suggestion! But it would be a way.

Is this style present in German? If so, does it work well? I'm curious how these situations do things like set prices for rent and are managed/accountable.

There are a lot of different models. But as I said above it's mostly (at least here in the Eastern part) GmbHs (a normal private-law company with resticted liability) that were founded sometime after 1989 by the city and got all the houses.
e.g. I am living in an apartment from one of those GmbH, created 1993, that got all the city-owned houses (roughly 10% of all bulidings). They also do management for other owners.  They have renovated a lot of those houses and currently are doing a big renovation project on what was the post station/inn of the town 200 years ago (there are a lot of really old houses here).
It's something a normal person could not really manage to do, they have experience. And the "Free Market" would not have done it in 1990s or even later, since so many people left that the biggest housing problem was to tear down buildings.

In my old town there were two housing cooperatives, one I think from the city and one privately founded. There was also a GmbH for the water, gas and electricity infrastructure (Stadtwerke, as they were called not only there). The Stadtwerke were city-owned and used their surplus to subventionate another city-owned GmbH that hold the sports grounds and other "leasure" stuff that could not run profitable . (The theater has another city-owned GmbH itself, though :D)

But back to "public" affordable housing, I think THE example is Vienna. https://socialhousing.wien/ About 50% of the people life in their houses.
If you want to get a feeling for this, you have to go through their complete website I think. I certainly don't know it good enough to give a "most important points" short summary. But you can get ~$9-14/m˛ new-build flats including passive houses in the best positions (they are the upper end). For a big city, those prices are quite cheap. Comparison: The lowest level in eastern Germany for renovated flats is $6.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

If there is one thing that I've learned from this pandemic it's that I will never be a landlord. But what does that do to rental supplies? I personally believe that the rental market will be ceded to large corporations like Invitation Homes and the like. Because only they will have the large portfolios to mitigate the idiosyncratic risk.

Or you could just go - gasp - the communistic way with city-owned cooperatives that build and rent out on a non-profit base with low-price housing in the center of efforts.
I know, what an henious suggestion! But it would be a way.

Is this style present in German? If so, does it work well? I'm curious how these situations do things like set prices for rent and are managed/accountable.

There are a lot of different models. But as I said above it's mostly (at least here in the Eastern part) GmbHs (a normal private-law company with resticted liability) that were founded sometime after 1989 by the city and got all the houses.
e.g. I am living in an apartment from one of those GmbH, created 1993, that got all the city-owned houses (roughly 10% of all bulidings). They also do management for other owners.  They have renovated a lot of those houses and currently are doing a big renovation project on what was the post station/inn of the town 200 years ago (there are a lot of really old houses here).
It's something a normal person could not really manage to do, they have experience. And the "Free Market" would not have done it in 1990s or even later, since so many people left that the biggest housing problem was to tear down buildings.

In my old town there were two housing cooperatives, one I think from the city and one privately founded. There was also a GmbH for the water, gas and electricity infrastructure (Stadtwerke, as they were called not only there). The Stadtwerke were city-owned and used their surplus to subventionate another city-owned GmbH that hold the sports grounds and other "leasure" stuff that could not run profitable . (The theater has another city-owned GmbH itself, though :D)

But back to "public" affordable housing, I think THE example is Vienna. https://socialhousing.wien/ About 50% of the people life in their houses.
If you want to get a feeling for this, you have to go through their complete website I think. I certainly don't know it good enough to give a "most important points" short summary. But you can get ~$9-14/m˛ new-build flats including passive houses in the best positions (they are the upper end). For a big city, those prices are quite cheap. Comparison: The lowest level in eastern Germany for renovated flats is $6.

Interesting. Thanks for the information.

[PDXTabs]

This? It was Q1 but it's 25%.

According to John Burns Real Estate Consulting, in the first three months of this year, nearly a quarter of all homes sold in the United States were going to investors.

From the same article:
"The argument that [institutional investors] are buying every single house out there is not accurate," Palacios said. This means that the impact that institutional activity is having on house prices is likely to be limited overall, although it could be more pronounced in certain parts of the country.

Which I agree with.

D.R. Horton Inc. built 124 houses in Conroe, Texas, rented them out and then put the whole community, Amber Pines at Fosters Ridge, on the block. A Who’s Who of investors and home-rental firms flocked to the December sale. The winning $32 million bid came from an online property-investing platform, Fundrise LLC, which manages more than $1 billion on behalf of about 150,000 individuals.

An entire neighborhood of new homes was sold to the highest bidder. Crazy. And Horton made 50% profit over what it would have made selling to families.

Houses almost always go to the highest bidder. But this is Fundrise buying 124 houses that were never listed on RMLS and putting them in a fund that any US resident could invest in. You are allowed a different opinion but I view this as a great big yawn fest.

[bacchi]

D.R. Horton Inc. built 124 houses in Conroe, Texas, rented them out and then put the whole community, Amber Pines at Fosters Ridge, on the block. A Who’s Who of investors and home-rental firms flocked to the December sale. The winning $32 million bid came from an online property-investing platform, Fundrise LLC, which manages more than $1 billion on behalf of about 150,000 individuals.

An entire neighborhood of new homes was sold to the highest bidder. Crazy. And Horton made 50% profit over what it would have made selling to families.

Houses almost always go to the highest bidder. But this is Fundrise buying 124 houses that were never listed on RMLS and putting them in a fund that any US resident could invest in. You are allowed a different opinion but I view this as a great big yawn fest.

If the houses would've been sold normally for $172k to 124 families but were instead sold to one rental management company for $258k each, that not only reduces ownership inventory but also means that Fundrise has to make a profit on their substantially higher bid. Fundrise can overpay by 50%; most people can not.

If it's only one subdivision, it doesn't matter. If it happens a lot in one area, then it becomes a problem, like in the Nashville suburbs.

[PDXTabs]

If the houses would've been sold normally for $172k to 124 families but were instead sold to one rental management company for $258k each, that not only reduces ownership inventory but also means that Fundrise has to make a profit on their substantially higher bid. Fundrise can overpay by 50%; most people can not.

If I'm a Fundrise member then it increased my ownership inventory. But that goes back to my previous post about how housing can be affordable or it can be a good investment but it can't be both. Along those lines Jerusalem Demsas at Vox just published an article about how Homeownership can bring out the worst in you.

And since this is a thread about Biden policies, the Washington Post just published this opinion piece about What the left doesn’t want to face about the eviction moratorium.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

If the houses would've been sold normally for $172k to 124 families but were instead sold to one rental management company for $258k each, that not only reduces ownership inventory but also means that Fundrise has to make a profit on their substantially higher bid. Fundrise can overpay by 50%; most people can not.

If I'm a Fundrise member then it increased my ownership inventory. But that goes back to my previous post about how housing can be affordable or it can be a good investment but it can't be both. Along those lines Jerusalem Demsas at Vox just published an article about how Homeownership can bring out the worst in you.

And since this is a thread about Biden policies, the Washington Post just published this opinion piece about What the left doesn’t want to face about the eviction moratorium.

This is something I was curious about. What he's doing is very likely unconstitutional. You can say that it's a good thing or for the good, but it's hard to see how it's anything but kicking the can down the road unless they're willing to totally flip the table over and do something like ban evictions forever or do something else that's game changing. Given how unemployment benefits have been as I understand it, unemployment and job openings now, etc. it's unlikely that anyone is going to have a much better financial situation to get out of their lack of payments for rent than they are now. So, what is the actual endgame of things?

[JGS1980]

If the houses would've been sold normally for $172k to 124 families but were instead sold to one rental management company for $258k each, that not only reduces ownership inventory but also means that Fundrise has to make a profit on their substantially higher bid. Fundrise can overpay by 50%; most people can not.

If I'm a Fundrise member then it increased my ownership inventory. But that goes back to my previous post about how housing can be affordable or it can be a good investment but it can't be both. Along those lines Jerusalem Demsas at Vox just published an article about how Homeownership can bring out the worst in you.

And since this is a thread about Biden policies, the Washington Post just published this opinion piece about What the left doesn’t want to face about the eviction moratorium.

This is something I was curious about. What he's doing is very likely unconstitutional. You can say that it's a good thing or for the good, but it's hard to see how it's anything but kicking the can down the road unless they're willing to totally flip the table over and do something like ban evictions forever or do something else that's game changing. Given how unemployment benefits have been as I understand it, unemployment and job openings now, etc. it's unlikely that anyone is going to have a much better financial situation to get out of their lack of payments for rent than they are now. So, what is the actual endgame of things?

Well, being as there is already billions of dollars allocated to the individual states, and yet most states have barely started the process of getting cash to landlords for delinquent rents (that the tenants need to apply and sign for), then a 4 month delay till end of January may serve as caution to the states to get their act together on distribution. Meanwhile, as unemployment benefits sunset in end of September, this will get the ball rolling on full employment for a few months prior to ending the eviction moratorium.

Of course, ALL of this assumes Delta Covid doesn't just overwhelm ALL of the country instead of just the South.

[PDXTabs]

My daily update on Biden disappointing me: White House Urges OPEC to Boost Oil Output Amid Covid-19 Economic Recovery.

[Mr. Green]

My daily update on Biden disappointing me: White House Urges OPEC to Boost Oil Output Amid Covid-19 Economic Recovery.

Were you looking for more or less?

[PDXTabs]

My daily update on Biden disappointing me: White House Urges OPEC to Boost Oil Output Amid Covid-19 Economic Recovery.

Were you looking for more or less?

I was looking for him to let oil prices go up to spur alternative investments and not to beg OPEC to please pump more.

[By the River]

My daily update on Biden disappointing me: White House Urges OPEC to Boost Oil Output Amid Covid-19 Economic Recovery.

Interesting that Biden is worried about oil prices going up when one of the first things he did was to cancel the keystone pipeline.  I know it wouldn't be in production yet but sets the stage for much less domestic production and upcoming projects.   Also, does anyone remember when the US was energy independent at the same time that the economy was growing at a 3% rate?  In case you forgot that was 2019 under President mean-tweets. 

[Tyler durden]

My daily update on Biden disappointing me: White House Urges OPEC to Boost Oil Output Amid Covid-19 Economic Recovery.

Interesting that Biden is worried about oil prices going up when one of the first things he did was to cancel the keystone pipeline.  I know it wouldn't be in production yet but sets the stage for much less domestic production and upcoming projects.   Also, does anyone remember when the US was energy independent at the same time that the economy was growing at a 3% rate?  In case you forgot that was 2019 under President mean-tweets.

So our president now thinks fossil fuels are critical for economic growth huh? funny isnt it.

He wants to enrich foreign dictators and human rights abusers like Putin and OPEC countries, by asking for more oil production. At the same time doing everything he can to limit oil production here in the US. Good thing he isnt known for being a president to have colluded with russia or this would look awfully bad.

This inflation thing must be creating some political problems for the white house otherwise he would never do this.

OTOH - maybe Biden is playing 3 dimensional chess. Letting other countries drain their oil while we wait it out and keep ours in the ground and ready for extraction? ha, not likely but maybe.

For the 3% economic growth im sure someone will chime in how its been higher recently, but ignore how were bouncing off a bottom. Wait until we are in the middle to late part of the economic cycle and we will see where GDP stabilizes. Who knows, maybe he can get growth up there. Ill criticize or praise him on that when the time is right... to early to tell in my view.

[former player]

Biden called for more oil production 2 days after the UN gives the world a Code Red on climate change.

If there is anyone who still has hope of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees I am at a loss to know how they retain that hope or see any way forward for it to actually happen.

[GuitarStv]

Biden called for more oil production 2 days after the UN gives the world a Code Red on climate change.

If there is anyone who still has hope of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees I am at a loss to know how they retain that hope or see any way forward for it to actually happen.

As long as we keep pretending that current rates of energy consumption can ever be supported, certainly not.  The hard truth is that we consume too much.  Renewable sources cannot provide enough energy to meet demand so we need to reduce consumption in a radical way.  Doing this will tank our current economic system and make life less comfortable for everyone.  The only real shot we have at reducing consumption in great enough numbers is to have the entire world pull together to agree upon reasonable business and personal energy consumption caps.  Since this will be massively unpopular, it will not succeed in any democracy - and since it is likely to cause uprisings and unrest in non-democratic countries it won't be implemented there either.

So, the longer we wait the worse the austerity required.  The worse the austerity required, the less likely it is to happen and the longer we'll wait.  We're caught in a positive feedback loop.  There is no realistic scenario of hope for the future from an environmental perspective.  Limiting to only 1.5 degrees warming is a pipe dream, we're going to go way above that.

[FIPurpose]

I don't think we need personal caps. Energy consumption is only 1/3 residential. And most places where people could reduce their consumption are highly limited. We need incentives and grants to improve older homes like adding higher levels of insulation to every building in the South so that they run the AC less, but the bigger savings are in larger government projects like expanding rail and adding more high-speed rail. Projects like that have the ability to reduce US consumption by >5% I think.

We also need certain industries to just stop existing who are consuming large amounts of energy for little discernible benefit.

[Boll weevil]

OTOH - maybe Biden is playing 3 dimensional chess. Letting other countries drain their oil while we wait it out and keep ours in the ground and ready for extraction? ha, not likely but maybe.

I think there’s an element of NIMBYness to it too…  those other countries will have to deal with the risks and consequences of oil spills and degraded environment.

[American GenX]

Biden called for more oil production 2 days after the UN gives the world a Code Red on climate change.

If there is anyone who still has hope of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees I am at a loss to know how they retain that hope or see any way forward for it to actually happen.

As long as we keep pretending that current rates of energy consumption can ever be supported, certainly not.  The hard truth is that we consume too much.  Renewable sources cannot provide enough energy to meet demand so we need to reduce consumption in a radical way.  Doing this will tank our current economic system and make life less comfortable for everyone.  The only real shot we have at reducing consumption in great enough numbers is to have the entire world pull together to agree upon reasonable business and personal energy consumption caps.  Since this will be massively unpopular, it will not succeed in any democracy - and since it is likely to cause uprisings and unrest in non-democratic countries it won't be implemented there either.

So, the longer we wait the worse the austerity required.  The worse the austerity required, the less likely it is to happen and the longer we'll wait.  We're caught in a positive feedback loop.  There is no realistic scenario of hope for the future from an environmental perspective.  Limiting to only 1.5 degrees warming is a pipe dream, we're going to go way above that.

In other words, the world is going down the shitter, and nothing is going to stop it.

[Kris]

Biden called for more oil production 2 days after the UN gives the world a Code Red on climate change.

If there is anyone who still has hope of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees I am at a loss to know how they retain that hope or see any way forward for it to actually happen.

As long as we keep pretending that current rates of energy consumption can ever be supported, certainly not.  The hard truth is that we consume too much.  Renewable sources cannot provide enough energy to meet demand so we need to reduce consumption in a radical way.  Doing this will tank our current economic system and make life less comfortable for everyone.  The only real shot we have at reducing consumption in great enough numbers is to have the entire world pull together to agree upon reasonable business and personal energy consumption caps.  Since this will be massively unpopular, it will not succeed in any democracy - and since it is likely to cause uprisings and unrest in non-democratic countries it won't be implemented there either.

So, the longer we wait the worse the austerity required.  The worse the austerity required, the less likely it is to happen and the longer we'll wait.  We're caught in a positive feedback loop.  There is no realistic scenario of hope for the future from an environmental perspective.  Limiting to only 1.5 degrees warming is a pipe dream, we're going to go way above that.

In other words, the world is going down the shitter, and nothing is going to stop it.

Basically.

Remember when you were a kid, and thought the adults in control knew shit and had things handled? Turns out we were wrong on both counts.