The State as Estate Agent

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: The State as Estate Agent

Postby WendyDarling » Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:21 pm

Most business owners started out using home and property ownership as collateral for their business loans. Under your proposition, people without great sums of cash or hefty business investors wouldn't be able to start most businesses.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7301
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: The State as Estate Agent

Postby Silhouette » Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:15 am

MagsJ wrote:Feel free to answer without my definition of extreme, as it's really just the usual meaning of the word.

It's fine, the question was rhetorical, because I knew that you would know that any definition of the word that you provided would be completely and validly disputable.

Hence, redefine the question if you don't want to clarify exactly what you're implying by the loaded term "extreme". I'm well aware of what it's supposed to mean, but if we don't get everything square on the table we leave ourselves vulnerable to problems of ambiguity and assumption - which never gets anyone anywhere in my experience (and yours I bet). Stating firmly and plainly what you mean is the only way around this. If you don't want to play then either you should retract your opinion, or submit yourself to a wild goose chase and admit that's your intention.

Precision will get to the bottom of things. Intuitive vagueness will have us dancing around on the surface, servicing nothing and nobody.

WendyDarling wrote:Most business owners started out using home and property ownership as collateral for their business loans. Under your proposition, people without great sums of cash or hefty business investors wouldn't be able to start most businesses.

A good point. Thank you, Wendy.

To start with I would presume that starting a business would require less collateral in the first place - with rents and taxation being consolidated and therefore much less significant.

Your argument is centred around the need for some token asset value to suffice as requisite capital for any potential business starters to persuade creditors to loan enough to fund said startup. Whether or not it happens to be property seems circumstantial to this end.

So given the presumed lesser required collateral under my proposition, and the same private creditor system for funding, in the absense of using property my proposition would need some replacement asset or other leverage to justify others risking their own capital to fund your new business venture.

I'll have a think on this one - perhaps it is the death of my idea - perhaps you have other potential solutions yourself?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3977
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The State as Estate Agent

Postby MagsJ » Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:46 am

Silhouette wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Feel free to answer without my definition of extreme, as it's really just the usual meaning of the word.

It's fine, the question was rhetorical, because I knew that you would know that any definition of the word that you provided would be completely and validly disputable.

Hence, redefine the question if you don't want to clarify exactly what you're implying by the loaded term "extreme". I'm well aware of what it's supposed to mean, but if we don't get everything square on the table we leave ourselves vulnerable to problems of ambiguity and assumption - which never gets anyone anywhere in my experience (and yours I bet). Stating firmly and plainly what you mean is the only way around this. If you don't want to play then either you should retract your opinion, or submit yourself to a wild goose chase and admit that's your intention.

Precision will get to the bottom of things. Intuitive vagueness will have us dancing around on the surface, servicing nothing and nobody.

Just say you don't want to answer the question already? as there's nothing loaded or vague about the question, but merely a follow-on inquiry from your prior post.. you are free to refute my accusation, after-all.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18705
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: The State as Estate Agent

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:58 am

Home and property ownership are the only largely valuable commodities, commodities that gain equity appreciating rather than depreciating that most people own during a lifetime. Cars or other big ticket vehicles lose thousands of dollars of their value when they leave the dealership's lot, also they are usually not purchased outright so under the chains of a loan already and are not considered any type of asset until they are paid off. I can't think of any one, widely owned commodity that gains equity 98% of the time as quickly as property that can help guarantee a business loan in the tens of thousands of dollars. Home and general property ownership is also used as collateral for personal loans for weddings, births, college, family reunions, etc. So property ownership helps to pay for many big ticket items.

Oh, I owe you an apology, Sil, for getting overly worked up and becoming fairly rude in our past exchanges...I'm sorry about my behavior. From here on out, I will try to contain myself, but radical craziness makes me radically crazy. :evilfun:
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7301
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: The State as Estate Agent

Postby MagsJ » Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:23 pm

MagsJ wrote:Just say you don't want to answer the question already? as there's nothing loaded or vague about the question, but merely a follow-on inquiry from your prior post.. you are free to refute my accusation, after-all.

I really don't understand what is so hard about answering this question.. Freudian pun intended. :)

Are you done here? it seems so.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18705
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: The State as Estate Agent

Postby Silhouette » Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:18 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Oh, I owe you an apology, Sil, for getting overly worked up and becoming fairly rude in our past exchanges...I'm sorry about my behavior. From here on out, I will try to contain myself, but radical craziness makes me radically crazy. :evilfun:

Thank you, Wendy.

So in the eyes of Wendy I am radical and in the eyes of MagsJ I am extreme. Well, I intended to think outside the box so I wasn't going to come out with something moderate.

MagsJ, why does it seem like I am done here? Assuming it's just reverse psychology to get me to answer, I'll humour you: now that I've made it clear that I do not go willingly into discussions involving emotionally charged wording, I can clarify that I don't think my model is extreme. This is why it depends what you think "extreme" is, because our own subjective ideas as to what it means may differ. To me, the housing market has a loooong way to go to settle to being affordable like things used to be - in the UK, inflation has made prices about 20 times more than they were 60 years ago, but house prices are about 100 times more than they were 60 years ago. To me - that's extreme! :lol: Maybe that's why you think something that would actually undo this is extreme.

Wendy, yes it is true that the current model requires some type of large value commodity that will appreciate in order to "interest" those who have capital in lending it to those who don't. This is what transfers the risk from the creditor to the debtor, which is what keeps the rich rich, even though it's the debtor who is the one starting the business to actually do something productive rather than sitting on their property wealth. At the moment, houses are all that really fit this bill, unless you already have a growing business, and the rich aren't going to give away their riches unless they have financial security and hopefully get more in return for their investment however things turn out - or they won't stay rich. So by this logic, there needs to be at least some commodity whose market is broken in order for an economy to function, with enough new businesses being set up.

So what downfall awaits us, after property owners slowly die naturally over time, and the "necessary flaw" to such an economy as our current one disappears and people can't leverage loans to start businesses anymore?
Well, it won't just be entrepreneurs who no longer have properties to use as collateral - creditors also won't have the wealth in their properties in order to give out as loans. "Necessary" inequality will decrease. Disaster!

3 things:
1) I already mentioned the fact that property costs will no longer be jacked up to current market rates, so loans will be less necessary to start new businesses in the first place.
2) There will be more incentive to start up cooperatives, pooling the money of many towards a collective investment, and giving many more people the incentive to make a new business profit rather than just a small number of capitalists.
3) Who now has the property? Government. They can loan wherever necessary, and in a way that isn't vulnerable to the kinds of financial gymnastics that were a major cause of the last global recession - there is no conflict of interest when government employees giving out loans don't stand to potentially profit grossly in some short term scam, before they run off with their loot, everyone else goes under and the taxpayers pick up the pieces.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3977
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The State as Estate Agent

Postby MagsJ » Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:06 am

Silhouette wrote:..in the eyes of MagsJ I am extreme. Well, I intended to think outside the box so I wasn't going to come out with something moderate.

MagsJ, why does it seem like I am done here? Assuming it's just reverse psychology to get me to answer, I'll humour you: now that I've made it clear that I do not go willingly into discussions involving emotionally charged wording, I can clarify that I don't think my model is extreme. This is why it depends what you think "extreme" is, because our own subjective ideas as to what it means may differ.

..not one of the hardest words to define, and from an objective viewpoint there is only one meaning of the word extreme in this context, and so it shouldn't be up for subjective scrutiny.

To me, the housing market has a loooong way to go to settle to being affordable like things used to be - in the UK, inflation has made prices about 20 times more than they were 60 years ago, but house prices are about 100 times more than they were 60 years ago. To me - that's extreme! :lol: Maybe that's why you think something that would actually undo this is extreme.

I think that many would think that your idea is extreme.. the fact that you cite self-entitlement as a reason seems resentful on your part.. you may not be, but it reads as such.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18705
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: The State as Estate Agent

Postby Silhouette » Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:20 pm

MagsJ wrote:..not one of the hardest words to define, and from an objective viewpoint there is only one meaning of the word extreme in this context, and so it shouldn't be up for subjective scrutiny.

And yet any supposed ease in defining such a word evidently doesn't translate in practice - this thread being example enough. Which is of course the whole reason I brought it up..... never mind.

MagsJ wrote:I think that many would think that your idea is extreme.. the fact that you cite self-entitlement as a reason seems resentful on your part.. you may not be, but it reads as such.

And I thank you for your opinion, speculation, and appeal to popularity.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3977
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The State as Estate Agent

Postby MagsJ » Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:37 am

Silhouette wrote:And yet any supposed ease in defining such a word evidently doesn't translate in practice - this thread being example enough. Which is of course the whole reason I brought it up..... never mind.

..and yet headway was made without me defining the word.. an achievement on your part. ;)

MagsJ wrote:I think that many would think that your idea is extreme.. the fact that you cite self-entitlement as a reason seems resentful on your part.. you may not be, but it reads as such.

And I thank you for your opinion, speculation, and appeal to popularity.

..but I don't think I'm wrong here.. on both my observations, of others agreeing and of your idea reading as being borne from resentment. Your housing plan is very post-war Britain, and then all we'd need are ration books to go with.. which were actually suggested being reintroduced a year or so back, but that one got quickly shot down.

I agree with you on dormant and neglected residential and commercial properties becoming state-owned for renting out after X amount of years laying empty.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18705
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: The State as Estate Agent

Postby Silhouette » Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:21 pm

It dawned on me the other day, thanks to Wendy's "collateral" point, that buildings are being transformed into the new gold standard.

Make it rare, create a market environment where housing demand increasingly outstrips supply - it's De Beers 101. But instead of having to waste money on marketing how diamonds are necessary for the most socially acceptable form of sexual reproduction: via engagement to marry (capitalising on Zahavian signaling) and controlling the supply to portray much more rarity than there actually was to jack up the prices - do it with housing, which needs no hard-sell. Instead of diamonds to symbolise engagement, or gold like a wedding band, a family needs a house. It's too perfect - let's see what they come up with next. A house is necessarily, it's not just a symbol, and it doesn't require marriage in line with falling marriage value and/or success.

Perhaps if the housing market is removed from the clutches of the private market's abuse they will just find something else along the same lines to exploit?

MagsJ wrote:Your housing plan is very post-war Britain, and then all we'd need are ration books to go with.. which were actually suggested being reintroduced a year or so back, but that one got quickly shot down.

And as if by magic, through the Association Fallacy my proposition is lumped in the with the undignified and the out-dated - all without any real argument as I am coming to expect. Perhaps you have some more speculation or opinion? You should be a journalist, they don't bother with truth, facts or legitimate argument anymore. Sensationalist language is what sells newspapers and gets clicks these days.

MagsJ wrote:I agree with you on dormant and neglected residential and commercial properties becoming state-owned for renting out after X amount of years laying empty.

Good to know.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3977
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The State as Estate Agent

Postby MagsJ » Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:19 pm

Silhouette wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Your housing plan is very post-war Britain, and then all we'd need are ration books to go with.. which were actually suggested being reintroduced a year or so back, but that one got quickly shot down.

And as if by magic, through the Association Fallacy my proposition is lumped in the with the undignified and the out-dated - all without any real argument as I am coming to expect. Perhaps you have some more speculation or opinion? You should be a journalist, they don't bother with truth, facts or legitimate argument anymore. Sensationalist language is what sells newspapers and gets clicks these days.

Nice counter.. shame it's just your opinion, on mine. ;)

MagsJ wrote:I agree with you on dormant and neglected residential and commercial properties becoming state-owned for renting out after X amount of years laying empty.

Good to know.

I think the ball park figure suggested is 2 or 3 years.. it should be 2, considering the urgency of the need to supply.. you never know, it could go down to 1.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18705
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: The State as Estate Agent

Postby Silhouette » Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:26 pm

MagsJ wrote:Nice counter.. shame it's just your opinion, on mine. ;)

Yeah the journalist suggestion was just (-ified) opinion.

You commiting the Association Fallacy, and sensationalist language upping news sales are fact.
My opening post and subsequent amendments contain description and explanation, constituting rational argument.

It is a fact that "that's extreme" is just opinion. It's my opinion that it's not extreme and by "extreme" you probably just mean "too different" from the unimaginative confines of normal thinking that is getting us all nowhere slowly.
Opinion can be dismissed with opinion with just as much validity, so that concludes the "extreme" accusation.

If you want to dismiss my rational argument, you'll likewise need rational argument. Better to reason first before wanting to dismiss, however.

MagsJ wrote:I think the ball park figure suggested is 2 or 3 years.. it should be 2, considering the urgency of the need to supply.. you never know, it could go down to 1.

More opinion. "Urgency of the need to supply" could be turned into something meaningful such that the quantity of years "1,2 or 3" has any rational justification whatsoever beyond opinion, but you'll need arguments far more fleshed out both for and against to narrow things down to the specific value you're suggesting from both sides, and since you're attributing quantities to things, you'll probably need statistics or other empirical data.

And even in the unlikely case that you fulfill all or any of that, neither of us will be any closer to that elusive thing of apparent legend: actual debate on the specific topic that I brought up in my opening post (as opposed to dismissal based on opinion and changing the subject to something else like dormant and neglected residential and commercial properties).
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3977
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The State as Estate Agent

Postby MagsJ » Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:04 pm

Silhouette wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Nice counter.. shame it's just your opinion, on mine. ;)
Yeah the journalist suggestion was just (-ified) opinion.

You commiting the Association Fallacy, and sensationalist language upping news sales are fact.
My opening post and subsequent amendments contain description and explanation, constituting rational argument.

It is a fact that "that's extreme" is just opinion. It's my opinion that it's not extreme and by "extreme" you probably just mean "too different" from the unimaginative confines of normal thinking that is getting us all nowhere slowly.
Opinion can be dismissed with opinion with just as much validity, so that concludes the "extreme" accusation.

If you want to dismiss my rational argument, you'll likewise need rational argument. Better to reason first before wanting to dismiss, however.

The only concluding such initiatives lead to, is whether they get to go through Parliament or not.. that's if they even get to that stage, that is.

The final responsibility would be on you, to prove why your initiative should be considered for implementation.. in its current form or another.

Not every single thing is about rationality, but viability.. not everything is solved by rationalising it.

MagsJ wrote:I think the ball park figure suggested is 2 or 3 years.. it should be 2, considering the urgency of the need to supply.. you never know, it could go down to 1.
More opinion. "Urgency of the need to supply" could be turned into something meaningful such that the quantity of years "1,2 or 3" has any rational justification whatsoever beyond opinion, but you'll need arguments far more fleshed out both for and against to narrow things down to the specific value you're suggesting from both sides, and since you're attributing quantities to things, you'll probably need statistics or other empirical data.

Having made policy that went through Parliament, I am well aware that there is supporting data that needs to be included with any submission put forward, and those studying Politics would get to learn this in the class room or lecture hall.

And even in the unlikely case that you fulfill all or any of that, neither of us will be any closer to that elusive thing of apparent legend: actual debate on the specific topic that I brought up in my opening post (as opposed to dismissal based on opinion and changing the subject to something else like dormant and neglected residential and commercial properties).

I never fail!

It is in fact you who failed to progress any discussion, but instead chose to concentrate on irrelevant word play and accusations.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18705
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]